Bause Super Drug Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 9, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1634 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions and upon the entire record
in this case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Houston Insulation Contractors Association, Mundet Cork Company, Johns-
Manville Sales Corporation are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. Local 22, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos
Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Mundet to refuse to
handle or work on materials produced by Johns-Manville and by coercing and
restraining Mundet with an object of forcing or requiring Mundet to cease doing
business with Johns -Manville, Local 22 has violated Section 8(b)(4(i ) and (ii) (B)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Bause Super Drug Stores , Inc. and Retail Clerks, Managers &
Salesmen 's Union, Local 1393 . Case No. 4-CA-3304. Febru-
ary 9, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 18, 1964, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief,
and Counsel for the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and
a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown,
and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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, cross-exceptions and
briefs, 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 Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order
recommended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent,
150 NLRB No. 160.
BAUSE SUPER DRUG STORES, INC. 1635
Bause Super Drug Stores, Inc., Pottstown, Pennsylvania, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all the parties represented, was heard before Trial Examiner
Paul Bisgyer on July 14, 1964, in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, on the complaint of the
General Counsel 1 and the amended answer of Bause Super Drug Stores, Inc., herein
called the Respondent. In issue herein are the questions whether the Respondent, in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
refused to bargain with Retail Clerks, Managers & Salesmen's Union, Local 1393,
herein called the Union, as the exclusive representative of the Respondent's non-
supervisory employees at its Pottstown, Pennsylvania, store, and whether, by this and
other acts, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties
waived oral argument. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed
briefs which were given careful consideration. The Respondent's motion to dismiss
the complaint, on which ruling was reserved, is now denied in accordance with my
findings and conclusions set forth below.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,
I make the following:
. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in the retail sale of drugs,
cosmetics, and related items at its stores located in Pottstown, Boyertown, and Allen-
town, Pennsylvania. The Pottstown store is the only one involved in this proceeding.
During the past year, the Respondent's gross volume of business exceeded $500,000.
During the same period, it purchased in the course of its business merchandise exceed-
ing $50,000 in value from sources outside the State.
I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets the Board's standards for the assertion of juris-
diction over retail enterprises.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The evidence
1. The Union's solicitation of authorization cards; request for recognition;
subsequent Board proceedings
In the latter part of November 1963, the Union undertook to organize the Respond-
ent's employees working at its Pottsdown store. Between December 3, 1963, and
January 21, 1964,2 the Union's organizer, Joseph F. Kelly, succeeded in obtaining
authorization cards signed by 20 employees under circumstances hereinafter discussed.
After turning these cards over to the Union, its business agent, John T. Haletsky, sent
a letter to the Respondent on February 5, notifying it that a majority of the Company's
employees had designated the Union to represent them for collective-bargaining pur-
poses. In that letter, the Union offered to prove its majority by means of a card
check 3 by a neutral party and requested that contract negotiations begin as soon as
1 The charge herein was filed on April 1, 1964, and a copy was served the same day
on the Respondent by registered mail.
2 Except as otherwise indicated, all dates refer to 1964.
8 This is a common informal procedure for verifying the signatures on union authoriza-
tion cards usually by a disinterested third party for the purpose of determining whether
the labor organization represented a majority of the employees In an asserted appropriate
unit.
1636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
possible. At that time, the Respondent had in its employ at the Pottstown store 32
nonsupervisory employees .4
On February 10, the Respondent answered the Union's communication by request-
ing that a Board election be held to determine the Union's asserted majority status.
In response, the Union on February 17 filed with the Board a charge in Case No.
4-CA-3263, alleging that the Company unlawfully refused to bargain with it. How-
ever, on February 25, the Union bled a petition for a representation election 5 and
2 days later the unfair labor practice charge was withdrawn. Thereafter the parties,
with the approval of the Regional Director, entered into a stipulation for certification
upon consent election which the Respondent and the Union respectively signed on
March 16 and March 19.6 The election, which was to take place on April 3, was,
however, never held because 2 days earlier the Regional Director permitted the Union
to withdraw its petition with prejudice when it filed a new unfair labor practice charge
in the instant proceeding.
2. The Respondent's antiunion conduct
While the Union was attempting to secure recognition as the employees' bargaining
representative, the Respondent's president, Daniel E. Bause, Sr., and its Pottstown
store manager, Richard W. Hughes, both concededly management representatives and
supervisory employees, engaged in certain conduct related below, which the General
Counsel alleges unlawfully interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of their statutory right to self-organization.
Victor Hatfield, a drug_clerk, testified that on March 4, shortly before noon, Presi-
dent Bause summoned him to the drugroom, informed him that he was aware of the
movement to organize the store employees, and asked him how he felt about the
Union. In response Hatfield testified, he stated that he favored the Union because he
thought it would benefit the employees. Hatfield further testified that Bause said that
he saw no 'need for a union and referred to his previous attempt to institute group
hospitalization benefits, which was ineffectual because not enough employees were
interested. Bause did not dispute this testimony and admitted asking Hatfield whether
he was for or against him. Although Bause testified that he could not recall the exact
statements he made to Hatfield, he did remember the conversation and that he
"couldn't get anywhere with" Hatfield.
Later in the afternoon, Store Manager Hughes told Hatfield that Bause would like
the employees to attend a meeting at Bause's home at 8 p.m. and that Hatfield would
be paid for the time spent there. Similar invitations were extended by Hughes and
Bause to other employees. At least 15 employees attended that meeting and were
paid apparently their regular wage rate for the 2 hours they were there. Bause, who
was the only management representative present, informally addressed the assembled
employees.
Hatfield gave the following account of Bause's remarks on this occasion: Bause
expressed disappointment that his employees were organizing, especially at that time
while he was experiencing poor health and other family misfortunes. He stated that
the employees should have first discussed with him the benefits they wanted without
organizing. He alluded to the insufficient number of employees who had indicated an
interest in group hospitalization when be previously proposed to arrange for such a
plan, adding that he again would see what he could do about it. Bause also told the
employees that he could not understand why they wanted to associate with this Union
because it was a "rotten union"; that "he could get tough about the union" and, "if
he had to, he could always close the store"; that he could give the employees any
benefits that the Union could offer, without being required to pay the Union $5 dues
per month; and that, if they reconsidered their action and "if it blew over," he would
give, them a wage increase retroactive to the first of January but could not at that
time promise any definite amount.
Hatfield's testimony was corroborated in material respects by employees, Edith
Lightcap, Jean Fiorini, and Betty Jane Baer. However, concerning Bause's promised
4In his brief, the General Counsel inadvertently omitted from the list of employee's'
in the appropriate unit the name of Charles Flickinger who, according to General Coun-
sel's Exhibit No 10 in evidence, worked at the Pottstown store from January 23 to
May 30, 1964
5 Case No 4-RC-5829 The unit alleged in the petition to be appropriate consisted
of "All selling and non-selling employees [at the Pottstown store] and excluded [p]rofes-
sional pharmacists, relatives of the owner and supervisors as defined in the Act "
0 The appropriate unit described in the stipulation was the same as that alleged in the
representation petition, except that the stipulation specifically included, what is implicit
under Board law, "regular part-time employees "
BAUSE SUPER DRUG STORES , INC. 1 637
wage increase, Lightcap recalled that Bause expressly said that "if the union was out
of the store, when it was all over with, he would give us a raise starting January 1st of
this year." She also added to Hatfield's testimony that Bause, after referring to the
Union as a "rotten union," suggested that the employees should "wait a while and
try another union." Fiorini recalled that Bause mentioned a wage increase and said
"he would see what he could do [about it] after this was all blowed over and that he
thought that he could treat each one equally." She further testified that Bause also
stated that he could not make any promises at that time. According to Baer's recol-
lection, Bause promised the employees that "after this thing would blow over, he
would equalize. our pay as of the 1st of the year" and asked them for a "vote of confi-
dence that we believed in what he was saying was true." She also testified that Bause
declared that he would fight the Union to the finish and that "he was still Mr. Bause,
owner and employer, and that he wouldn't let this thing happen-meaning the organi-
zation to come about, I guess "
Bause, who admitted that he "very definitely" resented the Union's attempt to orga-
nize his employees, testified that he called the employee meeting because of the un-
wholesome atmosphere prevailing in the store among the employees and their
unfriendly attitude toward him. Therefore, he testified he used that occasion to
apologize to the employees for his past remissness and voiced the hope that he "could
get things straightened out." He further testified that when someone raised the ques-
tion of money, he "brushed it off," saying that he was in no position to talk about it
and that he did not know what he would do if he were "free." He further testified that
he told the employees that he could not promise them anything or "even speak about
it." However, later on in his testimony he conceded that he told the employees that he
would give them a wage increase, retroactive to January 1, but with the qualifying
remark "if and when" because he lacked "authority to speak on it." Bause then
specifically denied telling the employees that he would give the raise if they did not
go to the Union.7 He testified that he never warned the employees that he would
close the store if it were unionized.
Considering the testimony of the above employee witnesses, which corroborated
each others in material respects, and Bause's partial admission concerning the wage
increase, I am convinced that Bause at the March 4 meeting promised employees a
retroactive wage increase and other benefits, such as group hospitalization, if the
employees rejected the Union, and coupled this promise with a threat to get "tough"
and close the store if they adhered to the Union. I further find that Hatfield's testi-
mony is a reliable account of what transpired at this meeting, as supplemented by the
uncontradicted testimony of Lightcap that Bause suggested that the employees "wait
a while and try another union," and by the uncontradicted testimony of Baer that
Bause asked the employees for a "vote of confidence that we believed in what he was
saying was true" and that he would fight the Union to the finish and would prevent
the store from being organized.
In March, before the representation election was scheduled to be held, Store Man-
ager Hughes asked Lightcap for her opinion of the Union, and she replied that she
thought it would be good for the employees and told him that she had signed a card
for that organization. Hughes also approached employee Mary Rizzardi a few days
before the election was to take place and asked her whether she knew about the
contemplated election, and upon receiving an affirmative reply, Hughes inquired as
to how she intended to vote. Rizzardi answered after some hesitation that she was
going to vote for the Union. Then Hughes followed her up to the front of the store
where she worked and asked her whether she had given Bause any consideration. To
this she replied that for the past few years she had received none from Bause. It is not
clear whether in this conversation, or shortly thereafter, Hughes asked Rizzardi
whether she was aware that some changes were going to be made, without indicating
what they were. She replied in the negative. On another occasion, probably about
the same time, Hughes also asked Fiorini how she intended to vote but she responded
that it was her business and that he should know better than to make such an inquiry.
B. Concluding findings
1. With respect to interference, restraint, and coercion
It is quite clear from what I have found above that the Respondent engaged in a
course of conduct designed to forestall the organization of its employees and to thwart
their desires to be represented by the Union for collective-bargaining purposes. To
summarize, this conduct consisted of promises to employees of a retroactive wage
7 When questioned under cross-examination whether there was any talk at all that he
might have been remiss with regard to wages, Bause answered that -he "didn't touch
a thing."
1638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
increase and other benefits, including group hospitalization, if they rejected the Union,
which were coupled with a threat to 'get "tough" and close the store if it became
unionized; a request for a vote of confidence in the context of such promises and
threat; interrogation of employees concerning their union sympathies and voting
intentions in connection with a scheduled Board election, thereby intruding into the
secrecy of the ballot; and a notification to one of these employees that the Respondent
contemplated making "changes" in the store in order to dissuade her from supporting
the Union. It is no longer open to question that acts of this nature fall within the
prohibitions of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
2. With respect to the refusal to recognize and bargain
a. Appropriate unit; the Union's majority status
It is conceded that all selling and nonselling employees at the Respondent's Potts-
town store, including regular part-time employees, but excluding professional phar-
macists and supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
collective-bargaining purposes within the, meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.8 The
record also discloses that on February 5, when the Union requested recognition and
on February 10, when the Respondent declined to grant it, there were 32 employees
in this appropriate unit, of whom 20 employees purported to have signed cards
entitled "RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION (Affiliated with
the AFL-CIO) AUTHORIZATION for REPRESENTATION." The form authori-
zation card read as follows:
Desiring to enjoy the rights and privileges of collective bargaining I, the
undersigned, employee of --------------------------------------------
Store Address --------------------- Store No. -----------------------
Employed as ---------------------- Dept. --------------------------
Home Address -------------------- Phone --------------------------
hereby authorize Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or its
chartered Local Union to represent me for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, respecting rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, in accordance with applicable law.
---------------- ------------------------------------------------
(Date) (Signature of Employee)
Except for the unfilled blank spaces for the store number and the department on a
few cards, the cards upon which the General Counsel relies to prove majority were
completely executed. No claim is made that these cards did not actually bear the
names of employees on the Respondent's payroll on February 5 and 10; nor is the
contention made that the signatures on the cards were forgeries. The Respondent
does argue, however, that the Union's majority status was not established because
two of the cards were secured by Union Organizer Kelly through misrepresentation
and 16 cards were not properly authenticated by him.
I find it unnecessary to determine the validity of the two challenged cards as their
exclusion from the computation will not, in any event, affect the Union's majority
status .9 As for the question whether the cards were properly authenticated by Kelly
8I find, contrary to the Respondent's suggestion, that the unit of Pottstown store
employees in which the Union initially requested recognition in its February 5 letter is
basically appropriate, even though it failed to specify the excluded categories of employees.
Nor is the unit description in the Union's February 25 representation petition inadequate
because it did not expressly include regular part-time employees who, under Board law,
are always considered to be in the appropriate unit. Whatever variances there are be-
tween the above-mentioned units and the one found appropriate in this Decision, they
are insubstantial.
9 Fred Snow, et al., d/b/a Snow & Sons, 134 NLRB 709, 710, enfd. 308 F. 2d 687
(C.A. 9). The two challenged cards in question were signed by employees Fiorini and
Baer when Union Organizer Kelly solicited them at their homes. According to Fiorini,
Kelly explained to her the Union's organizational campaign and its purpose to get better
wages and working conditions for the employees and asked her to sign a card to show
that he had contacted her. She also testified that she was not sure whether at that
time she had read the card which, as indicated above, expressly designated the Union
as her collective-bargaining agent, although she "probably" did read it without knowing
what she signed Baer testified that she read the card before she signed it for Kelly
and another union man, who told her that "they were trying to find out how many would
be in favor of this, that they might be recognized to have an election." Baer also
testified that on, that occasion she wanted the Union to represent her and "felt it was
a good thing" and therefore signed the card.
BAUSE SUPER DRUG STORES, INC . 1639
at the hearing, Kelly's account of the procedure he followed in soliciting the signatures
of the employees is pertinent. He testified that he went to the homes of the individuals
who signed the cards, knocked on the door, and, since he was not personally acquainted
with them, asked the person who answered the door whether he or she, as the case
might be, was the particular individual who worked for the Respondent, and usually
received an affirmative reply or was informed that somebody else in the house was
the one. Kelly further testified that he was then led into the house where he intro-
duced himself to the identified individual, discussed the purpose of his mission, and
thereafter the person signed his or her name in his presence on the date indicated on
the cards.10 Kelly also testified that several employees at the store had also identified
some of, the employees whose homes he later visited. When cross-examined by the
Respondent's counsel concerning the conversations with employees Levengood and
Fiorini at the time they 'executed authorization cards, Kelly testified that he told them
"more or less our side of the story" and they appeared to agree with him and signed
the cards.
Kelly's testimony is uncontradicted 11 and indicates that the individuals who signed
the cards were actually employees of the Respondent's Pottstown store.' Indeed, it is
undisputed that witnesses Lightcap, Fiorini, and Baer, whom Kelly had solicited at
their homes, were employees of the Respondent's Pottstown store at that time. Sig-
nificantly, the Respondent produced no evidence to show that the signatures on the
authorization cards were not those of employees of the Respondent, although it
undoubtedly had in its possession documents containing their signatures, as well as
available testimony.
In view of the foregoing, and under all the facts and circumstances herein, I find
that the authorization cards were properly authenticated.12 Accordingly, I conclude
that both at the time when the Union requested recognition and when the Respondent
declined to grant it a majority of the Respondent's employees had designated the
Union as their bargaining agent and for this reason the Union was the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of all the employees in an appropriate unit whom the Respond-
ent was obligated to recognize, unless there were other reasons excusing it from doing
so. I find below no such reasons presented.
b. The Respondent's rejection of the Union's request for recognition
and bargaining
As previously discussed, the Respondent, by letter dated February 10, declined to
recognize the Union and proposed that it first submit to a Board representation elec-
tion. However, shortly after the Union acceded to the Respondent's proposal and
filed a representation petition, the Respondent engaged in an unlawful course of
conduct which, as I have found above, was plainly calculated to interfere with, restrain,
and coerce employees in their selection of a collective-bargaining representative. The
Respondent, nevertheless, contends that its refusal to recognize the Union was moti-
vated by a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status. In support of this con-
tention, it relies, at least in part, on President Bause's assertion that before he rejected
the Union's recognitional request, he was informed by several employees that they
had changed their minds about the Union and by one of the pharmacists that a major-
ity of the employees did not want union representation. Neither of these sources of
information was identified or produced at the hearing. From my appraisal of the
entire record, I find the Respondent's contention wholly unpersuasive.
It is, of course, well settled that an employer who has honest reservations that the
union requesting recognition was designated by a majority of the employees in an
appropriate unit is not obligated under the Act to bargain with that organization until
that doubt is resolved. However, it can hardly be said that the foregoing evidence
establishes that the Respondent entertained a genuine doubt.13 Instead of submitting
to the Board's secret election procedures, which the Respondent itself demanded that.
the Union invoke to resolve the representation question, it engaged in an antiunion
10 Employee Fiorini, however, testified that she believed that her card was erroneously
dated January 10 by someone other than herself and that she had actually signed it
before Christmas of 1963 -
"Except possibly for the alleged misrepresentation discussed in footnote 9, Supra.
11 N.L R B v. Economy Food Center, Inc., 333 F 2d 468 (C.A. 7), enfg. 142 NLRB 901.
M At no time did the Respondent question the appropriateness of the unit in which the
Union originally sought recognition , nor did the Respondent request clarification of the
composition of the unit In any event, the Union described the unit more fully in its
representation petition which it filed on February 25, before the Respondent engaged
in the Section 8(a) (1) conduct found earlier in this Decision.
1640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
campaign to dissipate and undermine the Union's majority status. Surely, such con-
duct is not compatible with the bargaining duty the Act imposes upon the employer.
In these circumstances, the Union, faced with this situation, was not required to pro-
ceed to an election but was entitled to rely on its valid authorization cards as proof
of its majority status.14 Otherwise, the Respondent would be permitted to benefit
from its own wrong, a result the Act always seeks to avoid.
That the Respondent's refusal to recognize the Union was actually not prompted
by any sincere disbelief that the Union enjoyed majority support is further indicated
by President Bause's own testimony. He conceded that on or about June 12, a few
days before the instant case was originally scheduled for hearing on June 17,15 he
discussed this matter with his former attorney and accepted the latter's advice to meet,
but not to negotiate, with the Union in order to see what the Union had to offer and
"if and when ... [the Union] would convince me that ... [it] had something to sell
my clerks, then I would no doubt consent to negotiations. That's my personal
thinking."
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent, in plain disregard of its statutory obliga-
tion, refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative
of the Company's employees in an appropriate unit and thereby violated Section
8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with its operations 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 its free flow.
V. THE REMEDY
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that the Respondent cease and
desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices found and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. To remedy the Respondent's
unlawful refusal to fulfill its statutory bargaining obligation, I recommend that it
bargain on request with the Union, as the exclusive representative of its employees
in the unit found appropriate herein and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement . I also recommend that the Respondent
post in its Pottstown store the attached notice marked "Appendix."
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is 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 selling and nonselling employees at the Respondent's Pottstown, Pennsyl-
vania, store, including regular part-time employees, but excluding professional phar-
macists and supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein, the Union has been the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on and after February 10, 1964, to recognize and bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
14 Joy Silk Mills, Inc, 85 NLRB 1263, 1264, enfd., 185 F. 2d 732 (C.A.D C ), cert.
denied 341 U.S. 914; cf. Fred Snow, et at, d/b/a Snow & Sons, 134 NLRB 709, 710,
enfd., 308 F. 2d 687 (C.A. 9) ; United Mine 1Vorkers of America v. Arkansas Oak Floor-
ing Co , 351 U.S. 62
15 On the basis of a telegram received by the Regional Director on June 15, from the
Respondent's former attorney who then represented the Respondent in this proceeding,
the hearing was postponed indefinitely.
This telegram read as follows:
This will confirm my assurance to you that Bause Super Drug Stores, Inc, intends
to recognize to Mr. Selligers [sic] client and subject to such understanding as you
may reach with Mr. Selhger there will be no need for the scheduled trial this week.
BAUSE SUPER DRUG STORES, INC. 1641
6. By reason of the foregoing conduct; by promising employees a retroactive wage
increase and other benefits, including group hospitalization , if they rejected the Union;
by threatening to get "tough " and close the Pottstown store if it became unionized; by
requesting a vote of confidence in the context of such promises and threat ; by interro-
gating employees concerning their union sympathies and voting intentions in a Board-
conducted election ; informing one of these employees that the Respondent contem-
plated making changes in the store in order to dissuade her from supporting the Union,
the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of
their statutory rights within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The Respondent did not grant economic benefits to employees in violation of
Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of the fact and 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 ordered that the Respondent, Bause Super Drug Stores , Inc., Potts-
town, Pennsylvania ,' its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with Retail Clerks, Managers &
Salesmen 's Union , Local 1393, as the exclusive representative of all selling and non-
selling employees at the Respondent 's Pottstown , Pennsylvania , store, including regular
part-time employees , but excluding professional pharmacists and supervisors, as
defined in the Act, concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
(b) Promising employees wage increases or other benefits, if they reject the Union;
threatening to get "tough" and close the Pottstown store if it became unionized;
requesting a vote of confidence in the context of such promises and threats ; coercively
interrogating employees concerning their union membership , sympathies , activities, or
voting intentions in any Board -conducted 'election ; or informing employees that
changes would be made in the store in order to dissuade them from supporting a union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above -named Union as the exclu-
sive representative of all the employees in the unit described above , concerning rates
of pay, wages , hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its store in Pottstown , Pennsylvania , copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 16 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 4, shall , after being duly signed by the Respondent 's representa-
tive, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including gall places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notice are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from the
receipt of the Trial Examiner 's Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith.17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the paragraphs of the complaint alleging that the
Respondent granted economic benefits to employees in violation of Section 8 (a)( 1)
of the Act be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
"In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 be 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 "
W In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
1642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT promise employees wage increases, or other benefits, if our
employees reject Retail Clerks, Managers & Salesmen's Union, Local 1393, or any
other labor organization; threaten to get "tough" and close our Pottstown store if
it became unionized; request a vote of confidence in the context of such promises
or threats; coercively interrogate our employees concerning their union member-
ship, sympathies, activities, or voting intentions in any Board-conducted election;
or inform employees that changes would be made to dissuade them from support-
ing the above-named union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with the above-named union, as
the exclusive representative of all our employees described below with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment. The bargaining unit is:
All selling and nonselling employees at our Pottstown, Pennsylvania,
store, including regular part-time employees, but excluding professional
pharmacists and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
BAUSE SUPER DRUG STORES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Telephone No. 735-2612, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Ambrose Distributing Company and General Teamsters, Ware-
housemen, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union Local No. 483, affili-
ated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Independent).
Case No. 19-CA-?885. February 9, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 13, 1964, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster
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. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
150 NLRB No. 157.