W. T. Grant Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 437 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

W. T. GRANT COMPANY
W. T. Grant Company and Retail Clerks Union,
Local 1288, Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO. Case 20-CA-7142
July 26, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On April 13, 1972, Trial Examiner James T. Barker
issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief, and the Charging Party and the
General Counsel filed a brief in answer to the
Respondent's exceptions and supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as' amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that Respondent, W. T. Grant Company, Clovis,
California, its officers , agents, successors , and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a
Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all of 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
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. BARKER, Trial Examiner: This matter was
heard at Fresno, California, on March 1, 1972, pursuant to
a charge filed on November 24, 1971,1 by Retail Clerks
Union, Local 1288, Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union. On January
10, 1972, the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board for Region 20 issued a complaint and
notice of hearing alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act. On March 29, the parties timely filed briefs
with me.
437
Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties , and upon
the entire record in this case , and my observation of the
witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
At all times material herein, W. T. Grant Company has
been a Delaware corporation with a place of business in
Clovis, California, where it has been engaged in the sale at
retail of general merchandise.
During the calendar year immediately preceding the
issuance of the complaint herein, the Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, received
gross revenues in excess of $500,000. Similarly, during the
same period of time, Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, purchased and received,
at its operations in the State of California, goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources
located outside the State of California.
Upon these admitted facts, I find that Respondent has
been at all times material an employer engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent admits, and I find , that at all times
material herein Retail Clerks Union , Local 1288 , Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The issues in this case relate solely to whether, as alleged
in the complaint, Respondent's agent, Thomas O'Hara,
threatened employees with store closure in the event the
employees continued to engage in union activities and
whether, because of Golda Becker's union or other
concerted activities, Respondent discriminatorily refused
to reinstate Becker following the expiration of her
authorized and bona fide leave of absence.
The Respondent denies the commission of any unfair
labor practices and asserts that the record fails to support
the allegations of the complaint. Additionally, the Respon-
dent contends that the management agent who made the
decision with respect to the reinstatement of Becker had no
knowledge of Becker's prior union or concerted activity
and that his decision not to reinstate Becker was based
solely upon a legitimate business judgment. In this latter
regard, the Respondent contends that when Becker sought
reinstatement there were no vacancies in her former job
category; and that it was O'Hara's policy as store manager
not to assign or employ former section merchandisers in
lower ranking salesclerk jobs.
i Unless otherwise specified all dates refer to the calendar year 1971
198 NLRB No. 80
438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Pertinent Facts
1. Background facts
a. The Clovis operation
At material times, the Clovis, California, store of
Respondent was under the management of Thomas
O'Hara. O'Hara assumed managership of the Clovis store
on July 15. He succeeded William Inman as store manager.
O'Hara was assisted by an assistant manager, Gene Lee, an
office manager, and five section merchandisers. Addition-
ally, employed in the store during its day and evening
operations were approximately 25 or 30 sales employees
and employees in the "extra" category. Approximately 12
were full-time employees and most of the remaining
number were regular part-time employees.
b. Becker's employment
Golda Becker was initially employed by Respondent on
December 1, 1968. She held stockroom and sales jobs of
increasing responsibility and wage level until, in approxi-
mately July 1969, she became a department manager.
Thereafter, in March 1971, she was made a section
merchandiser. Becker commenced her employment at the
rate of $1.65 per hour. As a department manager she
received raises to a maximum of $1.775 per hour which
hourly rate was raised to $1.90 per hour when she was
designated a section merchandiser. Her duties as section
merchandiser did not vary from those as department
manager.2
As department manager and/or section merchandiser
Becker was in charge of three separate departments,
including the yard goods department. The latter depart-
ment was not a self-service department and, consequently,
approximately 50 percent of her normal 25-hour workweek
was spent in waiting on customers. The balance of her
worktime was spent in checking and ordering merchandise,
straightening the sales counters, and manning the cash
register. At no time did Becker have employees working
under her direction.
c. The union organizational efforts
In December 1970, Becker attended a meeting at a
restaurant where Messrs. Ogle and Kissling, representa-
tives of the Union, met with employees of the Company.
Approximately 20 or 25 employees of the Company's
Clovis and Fresno stores were in attendance. Thereafter,
on December 24, Becker signed a union authorization card
presented to her by employee Olita Cope who inquired if
Becker were interested in "having a union come in."
Thereafter, nearly 2 weeks later, Becker attended a
second union meeting. Approximately the same number of
employees attended. In attendance at this meeting was
Nora Parmer, a payroll clerk.3
No representatives of supervision or management at-
tended either of the union meetings.
A representation election was conducted on March 5.4 In
the interim period Becker participated with other employ-
ees in conversations concerning the Union. These conver-
sations transpired in the employee lounge on store
premises during breaks, and on the work floor during lulls
in the business day. Moreover, Becker met for coffee with
union representative Ogle but at no time did Becker
observe Inman present. Becker testified that she made no
effort to cloak her union activity.
d. Becker and Inman converse
In the month of January, the then incumbent store
manager, William Inman, spoke with Becker and asked her
why the employees wanted a union. Inman additionally
inquired if Becker did not think that the Company was
treating the employees right. Becker responded that she
thought that she was treated well "except in the matter of
wages." In this latter regard she observed that two
employees who were employed after her were "making
more money." The conversation was interrupted and thus
ended.
e. Becker and Lee converse
In the latter part of February, Becker and employees
Loeta Hefley and Vivian Welchel conversed with Gene
Lee, the assistant store manager.5 In conversing with the
employees, Lee stated that the Union could not offer them
any more than the Company did. Becker inquired as to
what benefits the Company actually offered, and Lee
responded that, with over 1,100 stores, the Company
"would close down one or two before they would go
union." Becker responded that she thought it would be
"ridiculous" to close down "a paying store."
f. Becker granted leave of absence
Commencing in December 1970 and continuing periodi-
cally until May 1971, Becker spoke intermittently with
William Inman concerning the ultimate need for her to
take a leave of absence in light of her husband's terminal
illness. On the first occasion Inman informed Becker that
he was "quite sure" that the leave would be granted and
that Becker could take up to 6 months' leave and be
permitted to return to her employment.
On May 20, Becker completed a written leave-of-absence
application. She specified the leave period as commencing
on May 20 and concluding on November 20. She applied
under the provision of Respondent's leave policy permit-
ting a regular leave of absence to employees who had
completed at least 1 year of continuous service. Becker
designated "illness in family" as the reason for her leave.
The application was given approval by William Inman on
May 21, and the district manager and the store personnel
division thereafter signified endorsement of Inman's
recommendation. Approval by the personnel division of
the application was signified by a signature dated June 3.
On the reverse side of the application which was
2 It is stipulated that section merchandisers are not supervisors within 4 The election was held pursuant to a petition filed in Case 20-RC-9765
the meaning of the Act The Union lost the election
9 Parmer cast an unchallenged ballot in the representation election 5 It was stipulated that Gene Lee's name did not appear on the Excelsior
which, as found below, was held on March 5 list submitted by the Company for purposes of the March 5 election
W. T. GRANT COMPANY
approved are set out seven conditions governing the grant
of the leave of absence. In pertinent part these conditions
are as follows:
1. The leave of absence plan enables full-time and
part-time employees who have established a good
record with the Company to maintain continuity of
employment during necessary unpaid absence. Period
of leave is deducted in computing length of service for
Retirement Plan purposes. People on leave of absence
are not eligible for vacation, bonus or similar privileges
during leave. They are, however, eligible for employee's
discount.
2. Leave of absence is approved for length of time
stated on reverse side. If leave of absence is approved
for less than six months, an extension may be applied
for, making total absence not longer than six months.
In exceptional cases an extension beyond six months
may be applied for.
6. It is expected that full-time or part-time employ-
ment will be available at termination of leave, but
return to same position, hours of work, or salary cannot
be assured. In no case can reemployment following
leave of absence be guaranteed, (except only in case of
employees drafted into the service of the United States
Government, as provided by law) as it is not possible to
anticipate conditions which may exist at the expiration
of leave.
When she applied to Inman for her leave of absence,
Becker was told by Inman that he would have one of the
part-time employees take care of Becker's department with
the assistance of another employee until Becker was able to
come back.
2. The alleged unlawful conduct
a. Becker seeks employment
In early September, accompanied by her daughter,
Becker visited the Clovis store and spoke with O'Hara 6
Becker informed O'Hara that she wished to return to work.
In conversing with O'Hara, Becker referred to the sections
over which she had served as section merchandiser. O'Hara
responded that he had no openings at the time and he
asked if Becker would be willing to take a part-time job.
Becker responded that she would take anything that "came
up." Thereafter, O'Hara consulted his files relating to
Becker's leave. He did not contact other company
representatives concerning Becker's leave.
A few days later Becker again spoke with O'Hara and
6 As found, during the period of Becker's absence Thomas O'Hara had
succeeded William Inman as store manager
r The foregoing is based upon a composite of the credited testimony of
Golda Becker and Thomas O'Hara I rely principally on the testimony of
Golda Becker However, I credit also the testimony of Thomas O'Hara
which is consistent with that of Becker in salient aspects
8 The foregoing is based principally upon the credited testimony of
Golda Becker and Shirley Canova I credit the testimony of Thomas O'Hara
concerning this incident only to the extent it is consistent with the foregoing
finding Specifically, I do not credit the testimony of O'Hara to the effect
that he made no mention of union-related instructions from "New York" as
the basis for his decision not to offer Becker employment Moreover, I do
not credit O'Hara's denial that he made no reference to management's
willingness to close stores before allowing a union to come in
439
informed him of her willingness to work on a part-time
basis.7
Becker had worked less than 30 hours per week and
considered herself a part-time employee. She designated
hereself as such in filing her request for a leave of absence.
O'Hara testified, without amplification, that Becker had
been a full-time employee.
b. The November 15 conversation
On November 15, Golda Becker again visited the Clovis
store. On this occasion she was accompanied by her eldest
daughter, Shirley Canova. Becker spoke with O'Hara.
Their conversation commenced in the front area of the
store, near the checkout stand. At O'Hara's request, he and
Becker moved near the jewelry counter where they carried
on the substantive aspects of the conversation. As Becker
and O'Hara left the checkstand to go to the vicinity of the
jewelry department, Shirley Canova walked over to the
fashion department where blouses were displayed. This
area is approximately 30 feet from the area where Becker
and O'Hara conversed. Carrying her infant son in her
arms, Canova surveyed the blouse counter and walked
back to the vicinity of the jewelry counter. She then stood
back of O'Hara within a few feet of him. As the
conversation ensued between Becker and O'Hara, Becker
asked O'Hara why he had not "brought her back" to the
store since he had hired other employees. He said that he
had orders from "New York" not to bring her back
because New York didn't want any more trouble with the
Union. O'Hara said that he would deny that statement if it
were attributed to him. Becker asked O'Hara what he
thought the "Labor Board" would think of the matter and
O'Hara asked why Becker didn't "go talk to them" about
it. Becker stated that she thought she would do so and
stated further that she thought she would also "go to the
union." Again O'Hara asserted that Becker should do so.
He also suggested that Becker should go to the unemploy-
ment office because she "had it coming." During the
course of the conversation, Becker averred that the
Company had terminated another employee because of the
Union. O'Hara stated that the Company would close "a
couple of stores" before it would go union. Becker
responded that the Clovis store was doing too well to close
down. O'Hara stated that the store was losing sales and
that there was going to be a cutback in the payroll. The
conversation terminated and Becker and Canova left the
store.8
Although the testimony of the three principals in the incident is at
variance with respect to the precise juxtaposition of Canova to Becker and
to O'Hara as Becker and O'Hara conversed, upon a careful evaluation of
the testimony of Canova and of Becker , I find that Canova was in close
proximity to Becker and O 'Hara during virtually the entirety of their
conversation I find also that she overheard their respective remarks, as she
testified she did I find further that it is likely, as Canova testified, she stood
in back of O'Hara I do not credit O 'Hara's accounting of Canova's
activities while she was in the store Initially, I am convinced that O'Hara
was involved in discussions with Becker concerning her prospective job
tenure and that his attentions were principally directed to that subject I am
not convinced that during the course of his conversation with Becker he was
as observant of Canova's movements throughout the store and other
unrelated store activities as he testified he was In this regard , I note that his
(Continued)
440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
c. The Company's defense
(1) The knowledge issue
Thomas O'Hara testified that on July 14, 1971, he was
informed by his superiors that he was to assume manage-
ment of the Clovis store. He reported to the Clovis store
from the Concord, California, store on July 15. The
incumbent manager was on vacation and no one of equal
or higher managerial level was present to instruct him
concerning his new managership. The following Sunday,
July 18, William Inman, O'Hara's predecessor at the Clovis
store, met with O'Hara for approximately 30 minutes.
During this meeting matters such as inventory, stock on
hand, merchandise orders, and future sales events were
discussed. The meeting was necessarily brief because
Inman had to report directly to his new managerial
assignment . O'Hara denied that he was informed of the
identity of the employees in the store who had supported
the Union in its earlier organizational efforts. O'Hara
testified that he knew only that a representation election
had been held in March 1971 and that it had been a "close
election."
(2) The refusal to reinstate
O'Hara further testified that he did not offer Becker
employment in job categories which became vacant after
September 1, when Becker indicated her availability for
work, because no openings in the merchandise manager
classificat on materialized; and because it was his personal
policy as store manager never to reemploy former "section
heads" or "bosses" injobs wherein they would be required
to "work under" another employee.
In this latter regard, O'Hara testified that, in his
experience, employees who had served as "section heads"
and had returned to work under the direction of another
employee had become dissatisfied and friction resulted. He
further testified that, based on his experience, to place a
former section merchandiser in the lower paying job
category of salesclerk would breed "discontent and
sorrow."
In substance, O'Hara testified that there were at times
pertinent six section merchandisers. Becker was one of the
section merchandisers at the time she took her leave of
absence in May 1971. The lowest paid section merchandi-
ser received $1.825 per hour as contrasted to $1.70 per hour
for the highest paid employee in the sales and "other"
personnel categories. As found, when Becker took her
leave of absence she was compensated at $1.90 per hour.
Stipulated evidence of record establishes that on Novem-
ber 24, the Company hired a part-time salesclerk. Another
part-time salesclerk was employed on December 14.
Additionally, one extra salesclerk was hired on November
27, November 29, and December 14, respectively. In
February 1972, Respondent also hired an employee in the
observations of Canova and his memory of the incidents were not
sufficiently accurate to recall that Canova, during her entire presence in the
store, was carrying her infant son in her arms I am convinced that, while
O'Hara accurately recounted some aspects of the incident, his account was
not as reliable in its totality as the accounting which Becker and Canova, in
combination, rendered.
9 The stipulation also reveals that in August, prior to Becker's September
part-time sales category and one in the extra sales
category.9
Conclusions
Upon the foregoing evidence, I conclude and find that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3), as alleged in
the complaint.
Initially, I find that on November 15, Golda Becker was
an employee of Respondent within the meaning of the Act.
On the day in question, Becker was on leave of absence
from her employment in the Clovis store of Respondent.
Under the terms and conditions of her leave of absence
Becker had reasonable expectation of employment if, as in
fact transpired, she applied to return to work within the 6-
month term for which leave was granted. At the very least
she was applicant for employment and, as such, was
protected by the Act from employer interference, restraint,
or coercion in her present or potential support of or
affinity to a labor organization.io
In the circumstances, I find violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act Thomas O'Hara's threat during his conversation
with Becker on November 15 to the effect that the
Company would close down "a couple" of stores before it
would go union. This threat of store closure, considered in
conjunction with O'Hara's statement that the Clovis store
was losing sales and that a cutback in the payroll would be
effectuated, had the clear and foreseeable effect of
interfering with and restraining Becker in her future
support of the Union, as well as any prospective resort to
collective representation through a representative of her
choosing, and thus ran counter to Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
Moreover, I find violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act Respondent's refusal for discriminatory reasons to
permit Becker to return to work after she had applied to do
so and had signified her desire to terminate her leave of
absence by reactivating her employment in Respondent's
Clovis store.
I find no merit in Respondent's contention that O'Hara
had no knowledge of Becker's past support of the Union
when he terminated her. It is not essential here to
determine the extent, if any, of O'Hara's personal aware-
ness of Becker's union affinity. Rather, it suffices to find,
as I do, that higher level of management in Respondent's
hierarchy had this awareness and instructed O'Hara not to
offer Becker further employment.ii This is the only
permissible conclusion to be drawn from O'Hara's candid
statement to Becker on November 15, when he gave the
quietus to Becker's continuing quest for work. With the
credibility issue determined adversely to O'Hara, conjec-
ture over why O'Hara spoke so openly is without
significance. What is significant is that he articulated these
sentiments, and that he was the managing agent of
Respondent with full authority to speak with respect to the
I request to return to duty, two part -time salesclerks were hired
10 See N L R B v Tesoro Petroleum Corp, 431 F 2d 95 (C A 9), enfg. 174
NLRB 1285
11 The evidence leaves no doubt that during Inman's tenure as store
manager Becker's interest in the Union had been sufficiently open to have
come to the attention of management
W. T. GRANT COMPANY
hire ank retention of personnel at the Clovis store. His
statement is, of course, attributable to Respondent and
binding upon it.
The cllear manifestation of antiunion, discriminatory
motive with respect to the refusal of Respondent to offer
Becker employment is augmented by, although not
necessarily dependent for validity upon, the evidence
revealing O'Hara's refusal to hire Becker in a capacity
other than section merchandiser. Becker had, it is clear,
stated her desire to obtain immediate employment in any
capacity: Her quest was not limited to the section
merchandiser position. Becker made this clear enough to
O'Hara in her early September conversation, and, thereaft-
er, in the two conversations that succeeded it, she had
stated her willingness and desire to obtain employment in a
lesser classification. By his response and inquiry O'Hara
revealed his understanding of Becker's willingness to
accept any part-time job. That vacancies periodically and
recurringly developed for which Becker was qualified is not
disputed. O'Hara's defense, upon policy grounds, is not
convincing in light of his failure to candidly inform Becker
in September, after he learned that Becker had been a
section merchandiser, that she would be considered for and
permitted to return to work only in the job classification
she had occupied at the time she commenced her leave of
absence. In view of these considerations, and the entire
record, I find Respondent's defense unconvincing. I find,
rather, that Respondent acted upon discriminatory motiva-
tion in refusing to give Becker employment.
On this record, it is not a compelling consideration that
Becker was not a leading union activist but merely a
supporter of the Union. The evidence warrants the
conclusion that Respondent opposed the Union. Accord-
ingly, it is reasonable to conclude, as I do, that when
offered an opportunity to screen from its employment rolls
a union supporter it did so by instructing O'Hara not to
rehire Becker. O'Hara's candid confessional was not
anticipated.
In the circumstances, I conclude, and find, that in failing
and refusing to employ Golda Becker following her
application to return to gainful employment in Respon-
dent's Clovis store, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described in section I, 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
12 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.
441
Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully refused
employment to employee Golda Becker at the termination
of her authorized leave of absence in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, I shall order that Respondent
offer Golda Becker immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or substantially equivalent position of employ-
ment without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges and make her whole for any loss of earnings she
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
her. Backpay shall be computed in the manner prescribed
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with
interest in accordance with the policy of the Board as set
forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. W. T. Grant Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
2. Retail Clerks Union , Local 1288 , Retail Clerks
International Association , AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Golda Becker was , and has been at all times material
herein , an employee within the meaning of the Act.
4. By informing Golda Becker that the Company
would close stores to discourage employee resort to a labor
organization to represent them , Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By refusing to employ Golda Becker at the expira-
tion of her authorized leave of absence , Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 12
ORDER
Respondent, W. T. Grant Company, its officers , agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Retail Clerks Union,
Local 1288, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employ-
ees by refusing to employ employees because of their union
membership, or in any like or related manner discriminat-
ing against any of its employees in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment,
except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
as amended.
(b) Informing employees that the Company would close
stores in order to discourage the employees' resort to union
representation.
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
442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Golda Becker immediate employment at the
Clovis, California, store of Respondent in her former or
substantially equivalent position, or, if no vacancy exists,
in a position for which she is qualified by reason of her
past employment by Respondent. Said latter position of
employment shall be as nearly equivalent to her last
position of employment at the Clovis, California, store as
operating conditions, viewed in context of the nondiscnmi-
natory business judgment of management, will permit.
(b) Make whole Golda Becker for any loss of wages
which she may have suffered by reason of the discnmina-
tion against her, in the manner set forth above in the
section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Clovis, California, place of business copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of
said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 20, after being duly signed by a representative of
the Respondent, shall be posted by the 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 the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.14
IJ 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
14 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 20, 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, except to the extent permitted by
Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, refuse to employ Golda Becker, or any other
employee, at the termination of his or her authorized
leave of absence, because of membership in or activity
on behalf of Retail Clerks Union, Local 1288, Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT inform employees that our manage-
ment will close stores in order to discourage employee
resort to union representation.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to
Golda Becker to her former or substantially equivalent
position of employment without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make whole Golda Becker for any loss of
earnings she may have suffered by reason of our
discrimination against her, together with interest on the
pay she may have lost by reason of our failure to
employ her.
W. T. GRANT COMPANY
(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 this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13018
Federal Building, Box 36047, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-0335.