W. T. Grant Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 999 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

W T. GRANT CO. 999
W. T. Grant Company and Retail Clerks Union,
Local 1557, affiliated with Retail Clerks
International Association , AFL-CIO. Case
26-CA-3092
March 5, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On November 18, 1968, Trial Examiner David
London issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Trial Examiner further found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint and recommended
the dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiners
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that the
Respondent, W. T Grant Company, Nashville,
Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified:
Add the following as paragraph 2(c) of the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, and reletter the
following paragraphs accordingly
(c) "Notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of her right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces "
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID LONDON, Trial Examiner. Upon a charge, and
an amended charge, filed on June 5 and July 5, 1968,
respectively, by Retail Clerks Union, Local 1557,
affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO (the Union), the General Counsel of'the Board
on July 5, 1968,' issued the complaint herein, subsequently
amended, alleging that W. T Grant Company
(Respondent), had engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act) In substance,
the complaint alleges that Respondent by specifically
described conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the
Act, and that on or about May 29, 1968, discharged its
employee Jean Rittenberry because she had been engaged
in activities protected by the Act By its answer,
Respondent denied that it had discharged Rittenberry and
further denied the commission of any unfair labor
practice.
The hearing herein was held before the Trial Examiner
at Nashville, Tennessee, on August 14, 1968. The General
Counsel and Respondent appeared by counsel and were
given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to offer relevant evidence Since the close
of the hearing, briefs received from the General Counsel
and Respondent have been fully considered
Upon the entire record in the case and my observation
of the witnesses I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Delaware corporation with a retail
store and place of business, known as store No 136,
located at 6th and Church Streets in Nashville, Tennessee,
where it is engaged in the retail sale of variety
merchandise. During the year preceding the filing of the
complaint herein, Respondent's Nashville store No. 136
had a gross volume of business in excess of $500,000.
During the same period of time, it purchased goods valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside
the State of Tennessee Respondent admits, and I find,
that at all times material herein Respondent was, and is,
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
Ii. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times
material herein the Union was , and is , a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Early in February 1968, Robert K Lee, the Union's
business agent, received a call from an employee of
Respondent whom he subsequently met and to whom he
gave cards designating the Union as collective-bargaining
representative. About 2 weeks later, this employee,
'Unless otherwise indicated, all reference to dates herein are to the year
1968
174 NLRB No 144
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
otherwise unidentified, "brought back signed authorization
cards," following which Lee, on or about February 20,
called a meeting of the employees that had signed such
cards
On March 6, Lee, from his office in Nashville, sent a
letter by mail, with "certified return receipt requested," to
Burnis Grubbs, manager of store No. 136 located at
Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, advising him that
13 named employees, including Jean Rittenberry, the
alleged discriminatee, were the "voluntary organizers" for
the Union Though Grubbs testified that he did not
receive this letter until March 12,2 Respondent, in its brief
admitted, presumably because of the facts next related,
that "it is clear from the record that at least by Thursday,
March 7, Store Manager Grubbs knew (from the
Charlotte Avenue literature) that the Union was seeking
to organize the employees in [his] store "
A similar campaign to organize Respondent's
employees was carried on by Lee at Respondent's
Charlotte Avenue store in Nashville Grubbs testified that
he became aware of the Union's activities at his Church
Street store during the evening of Thursday, March 7,
while visiting Respondent's Charlotte Avenue store at
which time the manager of that store showed him a letter
passed out at that store during the previous afternoon.
The letter was signed by the "W. T. Grant Organizing
Committee" and advised employees that a majority of the
Church Street store had designated the Union as their
representative and that their manager, "through a certified
letter," had been told that they "were the Retail Clerks
Union organizing committee " The letter invited the
employees to attend a Union meeting on the following
Tuesday evening
On March 15, the Union filed a petition with the Board
(Case 26-RC-3139) seeking certification as
collective-bargaining representative of a unit of
Respondent's employees at the Church Street store On
April 10, the parties entered into a stipulation for
certification upon a consent election scheduled for May
10 On May 9, the Union withdrew its petition
aforementioned "with 6 months prejudice "
Grubbs testified that, commencing early in March, he
held "as many as two employee meetings a week - in
connection with the Union organizational campaign "
During that period, Respondent had approximately 100
employees and meetings with them were generally
conducted in groups varying in size from 15 to 25. The
first meeting, however, took place pursuant to a
previously posted notice requiring all the employees to be
present one hour before the store opened on the following
day
During this meeting of the entire group, Rittenberry
asked Grubbs why the meeting was not being held on
Respondent's time, remonstrating that the employees had
not "clocked in" and were not getting paid for that hour
Grubbs answered that he had told Louise Fuller,
Respondent's personnel supervisor, to tell the employees
to clock-in, but she apparently failed to do so. Rittenberry
also complained to Grubbs that the employees were not
given any definite break during the course of the workday
and that the employees "needed a union to help [them] so
[they] could get breaks and everything " The Union
designation cards were discussed at this and subsequent
'Lee testified that, upon inquiry , he was informed by a post office
employee that his certified letter of March 6 was first refused for
acceptance Accordingly , on March 12, he sent a telegram to Grubbs
containing all the information found in his letter of March 6
meetings and the employees were told by Grubbs that they
did not have to sign such cards.
The complaint, as amended, alleges that on or about
March 15, Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, "changed its policies with regard to break periods
and reporting time . because its employees engaged in,
and gave assistance or support to the Union." The only
testimony pertaining to such a change was offered by
Rittenberry The General Counsel, in his brief,
summarizes that testimony as follows "At the first store
meeting called by Grubbs, Rittenberry brought up the
subject of breaks and reporting time Rittenberry told
Grubbs that the employees clock-in 10 minutes before
time to go to work and said that they should get a
10-minute break sometimes during the day Grubbs
responded that the employees were supposed to have a
break, and, thereafter, according to the testimony of
Rittenberry, the employees were given a 10 to 15 minute
break Prior to this time, Rittenberry stated that she had
not been advised that she was entitled to a break but that
she had excused herselt through the supervisor to go
`downstairs ' After the meeting with Grubbs, Rittenberry
stated that she was allowed a 15 minute break although,
again, she was required to check with her supervisors
first."
The testimony establishes that before the Union's
organizing campaign, during that campaign, and ever
since, employees were given break periods of 10 to 15
minutes. During all these three periods, however, the
employees were required to obtain clearance from the
supervisor before taking their breaks, a requirement which
the General Counsel, in his brief, characterizes as an
"understandable requirement " Rittenberry's complaint
was that there was "no certain time to go on a break " In
view of the nature of Respondent's business, a retail 5-10
cent store, with customers always present, the failure to
assign and maintain a certain time for that break is,
indeed, "understandable " On the entire record I find that
the General Counsel has failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that Respondent on or
about March 15 changed its policy with respect to break
periods in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act
With respect to the allegations in the complaint that on
or about March 15 Respondent changed its policy with
regard to reporting time, Rittenberry testified that prior to
the Union's organizational campaign it was Respondent's
practice to ring the bell, the signal to "clock-in," 10
minutes before the store opened for public business, but
that at an undisclosed time "after the union activity,"
employees clocked-in 5 minutes before the store opened.'
According to Rittenberry, the 10 minute clock-in time was
mentioned only indirectly at the first meeting in
connection with the demand for a definite break period
Louise Fuller, Respondent's personnel supervisor, and
Grubbs, both testified that at all times the bell rang 5
minutes, and never 10 minutes before the store opened.
The burden resting on the General Counsel to establish
the alleged change, it is significant that he failed to call as
a witness Patty Chastine, the employee who manually
rang the bell ° Nor is there any testimony that Respondent
ever announced any change in the clock-in time On the
'It was undisputed that on or about February 1, Respondent, together
with a number of other Nashville merchants , changed their store opening
hours from 9 30 a in to 10 a in
'The Union 's letter of March 6 to Grubbs heretofore described , identifies
Patty Chastain as one of the organizers for the Union
W. T. GRANT CO. 1001
entire record I conclude that the General Counsel has
failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
Respondent on or about March 15 changed its policy with
respect to reporting time
The complaint unequivocally alleges that on or about
March 8, Respondent "granted wage increases to certain
of its employees" thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. It cannot, however, be contended that mere grant of
the increase, standing alone and without consideration of
the motive or reason that prompted such increase, is
proscribed by the Act It is only if that increase was
conceived or accelerated to counteract the Union's
organizational campaign, or to induce the employees to
withhold or withdraw their support of the Union, that
Respondent's grant of the increase can be held to be
violative of Section 8(a)(1) Divco-Wayne Industries, inc ,
154 NLRB 974, 977
The testimony establishes that, effective March 8,
Respondent granted wage increases to 41 of its
approximately 100 employees, including seven of the 13
members of the Union's organizing committee Eighteen
were granted an increase of 10 cents per hour and 23 were
raised 5 cents The increases were granted following a
rating of all the employees' work performance This rating
process is engaged in twice a year, "around the first of the
year and then again about in the fall " The rating process
for the March 8 increases was begun by Fuller on January
29 when she prepared the necessary forms for the
supervisor who "rates the girls" and returns the forms to
Fuller Thereafter, 6-8 employees were called to Grubbs'
office where, together with Fuller, the rating,, were
discussed Employee Ruby Anderson and Fuller testified
that the Anderson interview was held February 21, at
which time she was told she would be given the raise An
unspecified number of other employees were also notified
of their March 8 raise on February 21 Christine Kersha,
a member of the Union's organizing committee, testified
that she "believed it was in March" that she was called to
Grubbs' office where he and Fuller informed her that she
was getting a merit increase of 10 cents an hour Ada
Catherine Breedlove testified that about 2 weeks before
March 8, Fuller told her that she would be getting a
5-cents increase.
As previously indicated, the increase under attack was
granted to only 41 of the approximately 100 employees in
the store. If, as the General Counsel contends, the raise
was awarded to influence 41 employees to reject the
Union, it seems more reasonable to infer that, by failing
to grant an increase to the remaining approximately 59
employees, Respondent increased the likelihood that these
approximately 59 employees would enlist the Union in an
effort to secure similar increases Indeed, in the only cases
cited by the General Counsel, N L.R B v. Exchange Parts
Company, 375 U S 405, Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea
Company, Inc , 162 NLRB 110, in support of his
contention that the 41 "wage increases constituted
interference in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act," the
benefits bestowed and which were held to be violative of
the Act were bestowed "across-the-board" to all the
employees in the units involved And, completely unlike
the two cases relied upon, the record here is devoid of any
testimony or suggestion that the Union or its campaign
was even mentioned to any of the employees at the time
they were told about or received their increases
Nor is there any contention that individual increases
were unusual in the course of Respondent's operations.
Thus, Kersha, who received such an increase on March 8,
had, in the preceding 4-1/2 years, received nine similar
merit increases On the entire record I find that it has not
been established by a preponderance of the evidence that
the March 8 increases granted by Respondent to a
number of its employees was violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act
At the suggestion of a supervisor, Kersha went to
Grubbs' office on or about March 11 and talked to
Grubbs According to her undenied testimony, Grubbs
asked her why she did not come to him and tell him what
her complaints were instead of going for outside help He
stated that he was sure he could help straighten the matter
out and was sorry that she had done "this." He also
inquired of her if she thought "we" [the Union] had
enough cards signed to hold an election On or about May
1, after an employee meeting which Rittenberry attended
and at which Grubbs and Herman Byrne, Respondent's
district manager, were also present, Byrne told
Rittenberry he would like to talk to her In his office, he
asked her why she had to go to a union to get a raise
instead of asking Grubbs She replied that "it wouldn't do
any good" because she had already made such a request
to Fuller. On the entire record I find that by Grubbs'
interrogation of Kersha and Byrne's interrogation of
Rittenberry heretofore found, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act Murray Ohio Manufacturing
Company, 156 NLRB 841, 845; Winchester Spinning
Corporation v. N.L.R B, 402 F 2d 299 (C A 4).
Rittenberry was first employed by Respondent in its
candy department on September 14, 1962 and continued
in that capacity until July 1966 when she voluntarily
terminated that employment. On or about August 12,
1967, she called Fuller and asked if she would like to have
her return to work Fuller replied affirmatively and that
she would be glad to have Rittenberry do so. Rittenberry
explained, however, that she could not return to work
unless she was paid $1.50 an hour and would not have to
work at night. Fuller replied that she would call her back
after talking to Jones who was then Respondent's
merchandise manager Fuller called Rittenberry about 10
minutes later, told her she would be paid the requested
wage and that she would not have to work at night.
Rittenberry reported for work on the following day and
continued in that employment as candy department
manager until May 27, 1968 when she was discharged.5
On February 12, 1968, an otherwise unidentified
employee in Respondent's camera department of the
Church Street store, asked Rittenberry whether she
wanted to sign a Union designation card and help the
employees "get more wages and everything " She replied
affirmatively, signed the card, and returned it to the
employee Rittenberry obtained other similar cards, gave
them to the girls employed in the store during the lunch
hour and received 4-5 such cards_ bearing their signature
Shortly after the Union's organizational campaign
began, Rittenberry attended a store meeting attended by
about 25 employees During that meeting, which began at
about 2 p.m and was attended by Grubbs, Byrne, and one
of the Respondent's attorneys, there was a discussion
concerning the full effect of the union designation cards
Grubbs, or one of his associates, stated that by signing the
card the signer "automatically belonged to the Union "
Rittenberry challenged the statement and produced a card
which she laid on a table in front of the three employer
representatives The attorney read the card but still
'The parties stipulated that department managers, of whom Grubbs
testified there were 30 in number, are not supervisors within the meaning
of the Act
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maintained that if an employee "signed one of those
authorization cards you automatically belong to the Union
if it came in "6
After this meeting with the employees was concluded,
Byrne told Rittenberry he would like to talk to her They
"discussed a contract" in effect at a store owned by
Respondent in Gadsen, Alabama, where, it was
represented to Rittenberry, the girls were only receiving a
$1 40 an hour under a union contract Rittenberry
"couldn't see how they were still making $1 40 when the
minimum wage was $1.60" and asked to see the contract.
They went to Grubbs' office, where Grubbs took a
contract from his desk and read an undisclosed portion
thereof to her. Though the testimony abundantly
establishes that this conference continued until the store
closed, the record provides little more than a modicum of
evidence pertaining to what transpired during that period.
Rittenberry testified that they "dust talked about
everything" and that Byrne told her that "if [she] was as
strong for the Company as [she was] for the Union,
[Respondent would] have a good girl on their side " Byrne
testified that "from [his] discussion with Mrs Rittenberry
it was rather obvious that she was very much for the
Union," and admitted that he told her that he "wished she
was working on their side of the project, as hard for
[Respondent] as she was for the other side " In its brief,
Respondent admits that "through several all-store
meetings, it had been made clear to the Employer that
Rittenberry was the most vocal union adherent "
Early in the morning about a week or 10 days before
the election then scheduled for May 10, Rittenberry was
engaged in conversation with Kersha concerning an
alleged "run-in" that Kersha had with Supervisor
Harrison Rittenberry told her not to pay any attention to
Harrison, to do her job, to "tell them [she was]- not going
to quit and they'll leave [her] alone " When she completed
her conversation with Kersha, Rittenberry discovered that,
unbeknown to her, Grubbs was standing behind her After
the bell rang that morning, Grubbs called Rittenberry to
his office where, in the presence of Supervisors Jones and
Griffin, Grubbs told her that she "was dust a troublemaker
. and shouldn't be in the girls' room discussing things
like that "
On either the first or second day following the Union's
withdrawal of its representation petition on May 9,
Supervisor Griffin criticized Rittenberry for having an
empty box on top of a caramel machine Loud talk was
exchanged between them during which Griffin pointed his
finger into her face and invited her "to dust go on
downstairs and clock-out and quit." Rittenberry replied
that she was not going to quit and that the only way he
could get rid of her was to fire her Grubbs approached
and Rittenberry told him what had happened and what
she had told Griffin Grubbs replied that they did not
want her to quit, nor were they going to fire her, that they
needed her and all the other employees
On Friday, May 24, Rittenberry secured the signatures
of nine employees to cards designating the Union as their
representative. During the same day, Grubbs came to her
candy counter and told her she would have to start
working at night She replied that she did not know
whether she could do so and would have to get her
husband's approval, that she did not have a car or
transportation, and that it would require a $3 cab fare to
'G C Exh 2, the only Union card offered in evidence, merely
designated the Union as collective-bargaining representative It made no
reference to membership in the Union
get to her home at night About 30 minutes later,
Rittenberry was called to Fuller's office where she was
told that Grubbs had instructed her to increase
Rittenberry's working hours and that she would have to
work the two nights that the store was open during every
week Rittenberry replied that, before doing so, she would
have to ask her husband On the following day, Saturday,
Fuller asked Rittenberry whether she had talked to her
husband and Rittenberry replied that she had been
instructed by him not to work nights. Fuller made no
comment
On the following Monday, May 27, at about 3 p m ,
Fuller asked Rittenberry when she was going for supper
and she replied that she did not need to go out for supper
because she had on the previous Saturday informed her
that she could not work at night Fuller thereupon told
her that her schedule required her to work until 9 p m on
Monday and Friday Rittenberry remonstrated that she
had never been required to work nights since she was in
Respondent's employment, and that she could not work
nights Fuller said nothing but just walked away A little
later, Griffin also told her that she would have to work
nights and asked when she was going for supper When
Rittenberry repeated what she had told Fuller, Griffin
merely shrugged his shoulders and told her that her
schedule called for her to work until 9 p m and that he
had "checked it out "
Rittenberry clocked out at 5 p m and met Grubbs who
asked her whether she was going to supper She replied
that it was 5 o'clock and that she was going home and
that she had told Fuller that she could not stay until 9
p.m. because she had no car and would have to pay a cab
fare Grubbs replied that if she did not work until 9 p in
there would be "no use in coming back, that she would be
without a job, and no card to clock-in on." Grubbs
testified that she told him that she was "not going to quit,
[he would] dust have to fire [her] " Because Tuesday was
her regular day off, she told Grubbs she would be there
Wednesday morning and that if she was fired, for him "to
have everything ready "
When Rittenberry came to the store on Wednesday
morning there was no card for her in the cardrack She
went to Fuller, asked why there was no card for her, and
was told that she did not have a job She was then given
her vacation check, one day's severance pay, and a
separation slip stating she was "discharged; reason for
leaving, could not work hours scheduled "'
Respondent, in its brief, asserts that Rittenberry's
"discharge came about for failure to work her job
schedule She sought special treatment which was no
longer warranted by the condition of her department "
Rather than seeking "special treatment," all that
Rittenberry sought on May 27 was continued adherence
by Respondent to the agreement reached with it when she
was reemployed in August 1967 - that she would not be
required to work nights In light of that agreement and
the continued adherence thereto, any unilaterally imposed
departure therefrom by Respondent over Rittenberry's
vehement objection becomes, to say the least, extremely
suspect In any event, I find no credible evidence in the
record that the "condition of her department" deprived
'Several witnesses testified in behalf of Respondent , presumably in
support of the denial in its answer that it had discharged Rittenberry, that
at several employee meetings she had stated that she would quit if the
Union "didn ' t come in " That pleaded denial , however , was abandoned at
the hearing where Respondent tacitly admitted that she had been
discharged
W. T. GRANT CO.
Rittenberry of the same "special treatment" that
Respondent accorded other department managers as will
hereafter appear Instead, I find that Grubbs imposed a
condition upon Rittenberry which he knew she could not
accept, would require her defiance, and provide
Respondent with a plausible pretext for her discharge I
further find that this pretextual situation was created to
cover Grubbs' true motive for imposing that condition -
to rid Respondent of the "troublemaker" who, "through
several all-store meetings, made [it] clear to the
Employer that [she] was the most vocal union adherent ""
Grubbs testified that on May 23 he was in the candy
department and made the comment to R ittenberry "that
the work was certainly getting behind to which, he
testified, she said "it just took more time than she was
putting in." When she informed him that she was working
30 or 31 hours a week, he told her that she had to put in
more time to keep her work "up to date . and [he]
would check with Mrs. Fuller and see if [they] couldn't
get her scheduled to put in more time " Grubbs checked
with Fuller and instructed her to make Rittenberry's
"schedule up so she could work full time like the other
department managers to keep her work up "' If, however,
all that Respondent was concerned about was the need for
increasing the number of Rittenberry's working hours, no
explanation was offered why consideration was not given
to asking or requiring her to work on Tuesday, her day
off. Instead, it arbitrarily imposed a condition which, both
Grubbs and Fuller knew, Rittenberry would be required to
reject.
Contrary to the "special treatment" of abstention from
night work denied to Rittenberry, the testimony is
undisputed that this special treatment was granted to at
least six employees, including five department managers,
Juanita Powers, Virginia Wallace, Thelma West, Betty
Osburn, and Eva Richardson. With respect to Richardson,
Fuller testified that "she was hired for six days a week
and exempted from night work, . . she works six days a
week, she lives out in the country " Wallace, Fuller
testified, "has a long ways to walk from the bus line and
this is the reason that she can't work nights."
By reason of all the foregoing, I find and conclude that
the alleged reason given by Respondent for Rittenberry's
discharge was pretextual in nature and that the real cause
or reason for her discharge was Respondent's desire to rid
itself of the Union's most vocal adherent. By that conduct,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
Respondent's activities set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with Respondent's operations
described in section 1, 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 now of
commerce
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and on
the entire record in the case, I make the following
'Respondent 's brief, pp 11, 15
'In the portion of its brief entitled " Rittenberry Discharge - Analysis
and Conclusions ," Respondent completely ignores this need for additional
worktime as the reason for changing her work schedule
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1003
I By coercively interrogating its employees concerning
their union membership or activities, Respondent
interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
thereby violating Section 8(a)(I) thereof
2 By discriminating in regard to the tenure, terms, and
conditions of employment of Jean Rittenberry, and by
discharging her because of her union membership or
activities, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of
the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
4. The General Counsel has failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that Respondent, on or
about March 15, 1968, unlawfully changed its policies
with regard to break periods or reporting time, or that on
or about March 8, 1968 it unlawfully granted wage
increases to certain of its employees
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I recommend that Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designated to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Jean Rittenberry, I recommend that
Respondent be ordered to offer her immediate and full
reinstatement without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of
earnings that she may have suffered from the time of her
discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of
reinstatement The backpay shall be computed in
accordance with the formula approved in F W
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest
computed in the manner and amount prescribed in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716, 717-721. It will
also be recommended that Respondent be required to
preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, on
request, payroll and other records to facilitate the
computation of backpay due.
As the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent
are of a character striking at the root of employee rights
safeguarded by the Act, it will be recommended that
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing
in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act. N.L.R B v Entwistle Mfg Co., 120 F.2d 532,
5 36 (C A. 4)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, it is recommended that Respondent, W. T.
Grant Company, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, be required to
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning
their union membership or activities
(b) Discouraging membership in Retail Clerks Union,
Local 1557, affiliated with Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
by discharging employees or otherwise discriminating
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
against them in regard to their hire, tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment,
because they have engaged in concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist the above-named union, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in any
other concerted activities for purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer Jean Rittenberry immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, as provided in the section of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy "
(b) Make Rittenberry whole for any loss of earnings
she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against her, in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision 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 or useful in analyzing the amount of
backpay due and the right to reinstatement and
employment under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its stores in Nashville, Tennessee, copies of
the notice attached hereto as an "Appendix "10 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 26, shall, after having been duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent, be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing , within
20 days from the date of this Recommended Order, as to
what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges any unfair labor practice,
other than as herein specifically found
"in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words " a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Retail
Clerks Union, Local 1557, affiliated with Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other
union, by discharging or otherwise discriminating
against our employees because of their union or
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
concerning their union sympathies, membership, or
activities
WE WILL NOT in any other manner, interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the
above-named union, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities
WE WILL offer Jean Rittenberry immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against
her
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of Retail
Clerks Union, Local 1557, affiliated with Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization
W T. GRANT COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE We will notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of her right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal
Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161