Country Lane Food Store

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 683 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

COUNTRY LANE FOOD STORE 683
own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from any and all
such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the right of our employees to
make a free choice in any election ordered by the National Labor Relations
Board.
All of our employees are free to become , remain , or to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Umon,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING CO., INC., AND VOLNEY
FELT MILLS, A DIVISION THEREOF,
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, 1831
Nissen Building , 310 West Fourth Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27101,
Telephone No. 724-8356, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.
Tinley Park Dairy Co. , d/b/a Country Lane Food Store and
Local 1504, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 13-CA-4930. May 17, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 29, 1963, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his
Intermediate Report 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 Inter-
mediate Report. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dis-
missal of these allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the General
Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
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 In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent with this
Decision and Order.1
'We hereby correct the apparently Inadvertent error in the Intermediate Report, sec-
tion III , A, 3(b), which refers to certain Incidents as having occurred on April 15 and 19
when these dates, as shown by the record, should have been August 15 and 18
142 NLRB No. 80.
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The Respondent, Tinley Park Dairy Co., d/b/a Country Lane
Food Store, Tinley Park, Illinois, contends that, because of a change
in its operations, it no longer meets the Board's nonretail jurisdic-
tional standard, on which the Trial Examiner relied in asserting
jurisdiction, and that it does not meet any of the Board's other juris-
dictional standards. The Trial Examiner found that the Dairy Com-
pany is engaged in the processing, sale, and distribution of milk at
wholesale and retail, and that the Food Store, a branch or division
of the Dairy Company, is engaged in the retail sale of milk and other
food products. He further found that the Respondent's business is
a combined retail and nonretail operation constituting a single, inte-
grated enterprise; that during the period from September 1, 1961,
through February 1962, it purchased milk directly from Wisconsin
in excess of $50,000; and that this constituted direct inflow which met
the Board's jurisdictional standard for nonretail operations. The
Respondent contends that, prior to the commission of any of the al-
leged unfair labor practices, it had permanently ceased purchasing
milk which originates outside the State of Illinois, except for pur-
chases made from the Borden Company, which totaled only $56,000
for the period from February 1961 until July 1962; and that, there-
fore, there is no direct inflow, and the current indirect inflow is in-
sufficient to satisfy the Board's nonretail standard. The Board, how-
ever, asserts jurisdiction over an integrated enterprise engaged, as
here, in both retail and nonretail operations, if the enterprise meets
either the Board's retail or nonretail jurisdictional standard 2 Here,
the record shows that, in the calendar year 1961, the Respondent's
gross business income was approximately $622,000; and there is no
evidence or contention that there has been any change in the Respond-
ent's gross volume. As the Respondent's gross volume of business,
therefore, exceeds $500,000 annually, it falls within the Board's re-
tail jurisdictional standard? Accordingly, even if the Board's non-
retail standard is no longer satisfied, we nevertheless find that the
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
interrogated, threatened, and coerced its employees, in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and discriminatorily discharged Lois
Bruce for union activities, in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of
the Act.
The Trial Examiner further found, and we agree, that Violet Kenny
was discharged for union activities in violation of Section 8 (a) (3)
a Wash Well No . 2, Inc, et at ., 139 NLRB 417, and cases cited therein.
3 Carolina Supplies and Cement Co , 122 NLRB 88. Respondent ' s purchases from
Borden establish the Board ' s legal jurisdiction . N L R.B. v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corporation,
371 U.S. 224.
COUNTRY LANE FOOD STORE 685
and (1) of the Act. The Respondent contended that Kenny was a
supervisor; but the Trial Examiner found that Kenny had generally
performed the same functions as other salesgirls, that she taught new
salesgirls their routine duties because she was a more experienced
and able employee, that she received a higher salary than other sales-
girls because of her experience and ability, but that she did not possess
any supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act. The Trial
Examiner nevertheless declined to recommend immediate reinstate-
ment and backpay for Kenny, but recommended only that she be
given preferential hiring status, on the grounds that no replacement
had been hired for Kenny at the time of the hearing, that her "pay
and responsibilities were distinguishable from that of the other sales-
girls," and that he "would not recommend that Respondent discharge
a salesgirl to provide employment for Kenny."
The General Counsel and the Charging Union have excepted to
this failure to recommend reinstatement and backpay, and we find
merit in their exceptions. Kenny was discharged unlawfully because
of her leadership in union activity, and none of the reasons advanced
by the Trial Examiner, in our opinion, warrant withholding the
Board's customary remedial order of reinstatement and backpay until
a vacancy occurs. Moreover, as the Trial Examiner found in regard
to Kenny's discharge, "Respondent's allegations that the discharge
was motivated by economic necessity does not withstand scrutiny."
Consequently, there is no warrant in the record for the Trial Ex-
aminer's assumption concerning the effect of Kenny's reinstatement.
Under all the circumstances, therefore, we shall provide our usual
remedy of reinstatement and backpay for Kenny.
3. The refusal to bargain
(a) The appropriate unit
We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the following
employees of the Respondent constitute an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act :
All full-time and part-time employees at its Tinley Park, Illinois,
retail store, excluding all professional employees, guards, and super-
visors within the meaning of the Act.
(b) The Union's representation of a majority
On May 8, 1962, four of the six employees in the above-described
unit met at Kenny's home with representatives of the Union and signed
cards designating the Union as their representative. On the follow-
ing day, Betty Villa, one of these employees, told her husband that
she regretted signing the card. On May 10, Villa also told the Re-
spondent's store manager, Subs, about the meeting at Kenny's house,
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and that she had signed a union card. Villa also testified that she
prepared separate handwritten letters of resignation from the Union,
which were typewritten by the Respondent, and, after being signed
by Villa and one other employee, were sent to the Union on August 3.
The Trial Examiner found that Villa's "action in notifying Suhs of
her signing with the Union, together with her announced decision
to her husband to stay out of the Union, constituted a revocation of
her designation" which dissipated the Union's majority. The Gen-
eral Counsel and the Charging Union maintain that Villa's conduct
did not constitute a revocation. We agree. What Villa told her
husband was not then communicated to the Union and thus did not,
apart from any other consideration, constitute a revocation.4 And
as Villa did not tell Suhs that she regretted having signed a card,
but told him only that she had signed one, there is nothing in this
aspect of her conduct that warrants the Trial Examiner's conclusion
as to revocation. In addition, Villa chose to do nothing further about
the matter until August 3, when, with the Respondent's assistance,
and subsequent to the Respondent's unfair labor practices found above,
she sent a letter of resignation to the Union. We find, therefore, that
Villa did not purport to revoke her designation of the Union until
August 3, when she sent her letter of resignation to the Union. We
find further that, in view of the unfair labor practices which had
been engaged in by the Respondent prior to that date, the August 3
resignations did not impair the Union's majority status.5 Accord-
ingly, we find that on May 8, 1962, and at all times thereafter, the
Union represented a majority of the Respondent's employees in an
appropriate unit.
(c) Refusal to bargain
The Union, in a letter dated May 11, 1962, requested recognition as
the bargaining representative of the Respondent's store employees,
and stated that it was ready and willing to prove to the Respondent,
through any impartial source, that it represented a majority of the
Respondent's employees. On the following day, the store manager,
Suhs, notified the Union by telephone that the Respondent would not
recognize the Union. No reason was given. At the hearing the
Respondent contended that it had refused recognition because the
Union did not, in fact, represent a majority of employees in an ap-
propriate unit.
As set forth above, however, the Union did, on the date of the Re-
spondent's refusal to recognize it, represent a majority of the ap-
propriate unit. Furthermore, doubt is cast upon the validity of the
Respondent's claimed belief, asserted for the first time at the hearing,
that the Union lacked majority status, by the Respondent's failure
4Idaho Egg Producers , 111 NLRB 93, 106-107 ( discussion regarding Panter).
5 Franks Bros. Company v. NLRB , 321 U.S. 702.
COUNTRY LANE FOOD STORE 687
to advise the Union of this belief at the time recognition was denied,
or to indicate a willingness to have the question resolved through an
impartial source, as the Union suggested in its letter requesting recog-
nition. Finally, any contention by the Respondent of a good-faith
doubt of the Union's majority is refuted by the Respondent's entire
course of conduct. The record shows, in this connection, that the
Respondent, from the time it first learned that the Union was organiz-
ing its employees, resorted to conduct calculated to undermine the
status of the Union, and to interfere with the rights of its employees
to select a representative of their own choosing. The Respondent,
during this period, discriminatorily discharged Kenny and Bruce,
interrogated employees about their union sympathies, granted wage
increases to discourage union activity, and threatened to discharge all
the employees if the Union were successful.
Accordingly, we find, on the entire record, that the Respondent
refused to recognize the Union, not because it doubted its representa-
tive status, but because it was seeking to forestall collective bargain-
ing with the Union which represented a majority in an appropriate
unit in violation of its obligation under the Act.' We therefore find
that the Respondent, on and after May 11, 1962, refused to bargain in
good faith with the Union as the representative of its employees in
an appropriate unit, in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the
Act, and we shall enter our customary order to remedy this violation.
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, the Board re-
jects the Trial Examiner's conclusions of law number 6, renumbers
his conclusions of law number 5 as number 8, and makes the following
additional-
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
5. All full-time and part-time employees of the Respondent at
its Tinley Park, Illinois, store, excluding all professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
6. At all times since May 8, 1962, Local 1504, Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO, has been the exclusive rep-
resentative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of
employment.
7. By refusing on May 11, 1962, and thereafter, to bargain col-
lectively with the aforesaid labor organization, the Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
Joy Silk Mills , Inc. v. N.L.IL .B., 185 F. 2d 732 , cert. denied , 341 U.S. 914.
Egg DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications:'
1. Renumber provision 1 (c) as 1 (d) and make the following
addition :
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, with Local 1504, Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
its employees in the following appropriate unit :
All full-time and part-time employees at its Tinley Park, Illi-
nois, retail store, excluding all professional employees, guards,
and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
2. Amend paragraph numbered 2(a) to include the name of Violet
Kenny preceding that of Lois Bruce.
3. Delete provision 2(b) and add the following:
2 (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with Local 1504, Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the Respondent's employees in the unit found
appropriate with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
'The notice is hereby amended as follows: (1) Amend the fifth indented paragraph
thereof to include the name of Violet Kenny preceding that of Lois Bruce. (2) Delete the
last indented paragraph thereof, and add the following
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, with Local 1504,
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of
our employees in the appropriate unit described below, and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement The appropriate unit is:
All full-time and part-time employees at our Tinley Park, Illinois, retail store,
excluding all professional employees, guards, and supervisors within the meaning
of the Act.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed June 7 , 1962 ,1 by Local 1504, Retail Clerks International
Association , AFL-CIO, herein called the Retail Clerks or the Union , the General
Counsel issued a complaint and amended complaint against Tinley Park Dairy Co.,
d/b/a Country Lane Food Store, herein called Tinley or the Respondent , alleging
that Respondent by its agents and supervisors interrogated its employees concern-
ing their union membership , threatened its employees with dismissal for engaging
in union activity , and promised its employees benefits for refraining from engaging
in union activity , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; that it discharged
two employees because they engaged in union activity, in violation of Section 8(a)
(3) and (1) of the Act; that it refused to bargain in good faith with the Union,
the designated collective -bargaining agent of the employees in a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining , in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act-
1 Unless otherwise noted all dates are 1962.
COUNTRY LANE FOOD STORE 689
The answer denied Respondent was engaged in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of the Act and denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
This proceeding, with the General Counsel, the Respondent and the Union repre-
sented, was heard before Trial Examiner John F. Funke in Chicago, Illinois, on
October 9 and 10.
Briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Respondent on Decem-
ber 6.2
Upon the entire record in this case and my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Tinley Park Dairy Co. is a Delaware corporation maintaining its principal place
of business at Tinley Park, Illinois, where it has been engaged in the processing,
sale, and distribution of milk, both wholesale and retail, since 1926. The entire
operations of Tinley are located in a single building at Tinley Park. About 4 years
ago Tinley opened a retail store for the sale of milk and other products 3 on its
premises and it is this store, known as Country Lane Food Store, herein called
Country, which is the operation involved in this proceeding. Country is not a
separate corporation but a branch or division of Tinley and is under the manage-
ment of Tinley's officers and supervisors. Jurisdiction will, therefore be determined
by the operations of Tinley since it is the impact of the employer's total operations
rather than the operations involved in the immediate proceeding which resolve
that issue .4
Apart from Country's sales, which are entirely retail, Tinley's sales of milk are
approximately one-third wholesale so Tinley is governed by the Board's wholesale
standards.5 Respondent's purchases of milk are separated into purchases of raw
milk, purchased from the Pure Milk Association, herein called PMA, and of proc-
essed milk, already bottled or in cartons, from The Borden Company. During
the period from September 1, 1961, through February 1962, Tinley received pur-
chases of milk from PMA directly from Albion, Wisconsin, in a value of $99,170.
Since March 5 Tinley has made its purchases from PMA's receiving station at
Kankakee, Illinois. It is unnecessary, however, to determine the origin of the milk
purchased from Kankakee since the dollar volume of the milk purchased directly
from Albion within a year of the filing of the charges is sufficient to meet the
Board's jurisdictional standards 6
I therefore find Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act?
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Retail Clerks is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
1. Background
Seven persons were employed at Country on May 8. Delia Kee was day super-
visor, Violet Kenny was night supervisor, and Mary Bounds, Lois Bruce, Jackie
'On October 31 the General Counsel moved to make certain corrections in the record
and to withdraw General Counsel's Exhibit No 11. There being no objection both motions
are granted Exhibit No. 11 Is withdrawn and the transcript is corrected as follows.
Page 9, line 4, "$275,090" is corrected to "$207,590" ; page 9, line 4, "$451,156" is
corrected to "$415,156" ; page 40, line 20, "$500" is corrected to "$600" ; page 71,
line 4, "status" is corrected to "Saturdays" ; "Delia Key" is corrected to "Delia Kee"
wherever it appears in the transcript.
Other products Include groceries and canned goods, beer and soft drinks, frozen foods
and fresh vegetables, and meats, bakery products, etc. The sales of milk, all of which Is
obtained from Tinley, average approximately 45 percent of the total sales of Country
(General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 14, 15, and 16.)
The T. H. Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732.
e Id.
e Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
7N.L.R.B. v. Reliance Fuel Corporation, 371 U.S. 224.
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Gray, Phyllis Lewis, and Betty Villa were salesgirls .8 James Wichterman was a
part-time employee whose status within the unit is disputed, Respondent claiming
he was an employee of Country and the General Counsel alleging he was employed
by Tinley. The girls performed the usual services of clerks in a small retail
store, waiting on customers, marking prices, operating the cash register, etc. Their
duties are familiar to everyone who has shopped outside a supermarket.
At about 10 p in. on May 8 four of the girls met with Mr. Nicholson and Mr.
Edwards, representatives of the Retail Clerks, at the home of Violet Kenny. The
others were Lois Bruce, Mary Bounds, and Betty Villa. The next morning, May 9,
Betty Villa informed Edwin C. Subs, referred to by all the witnesses as Sonny,9
of the meeting.
2. Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
a. The testimony of Mary Bounds
Mary Bounds testified that when she reported for work on May 10 (the day
after Betty Villa had informed Sonny Subs of the union meeting at Kenny's home
on May 8), Sonny Subs told her they wanted to see her in the office. She went
to the office where Edwin F. Subs told her they had received information through
the "drug store" that there had been a union meeting and asked if she had attended.
She lied and denied attending. Subs told her he knew they had all attended and
that the husbands had also attended.1e Subs also asked her why they wanted a union
and told her Tinley did not want a union and that before they would have a union
they would let the girls go and operate the store with the family. Subs told her
that since Kenny had been let go he would be able to give the girls a 10-cent increase.
About I week later Sonny Subs called her on the telephone and said he had just
received a letter from the Union and that he knew the meeting had been held.
Sonny again asked her if she had attended and she again denied it. This interroga-
tion was repeated at intervals, according to Bounds.
Later Bounds and Betty Villa admitted to Delia Kee that they had attended
the meeting. (Villa is the employee who informed of the meeting.)
I credit this testimony of Bounds, none of which is substantially denied.
b. The testimony of Lois Bruce
Lois Bruce was employed by Country as a salesgirl on the night shift from Febru-
ary 13 or 14 to August 22. She attended the meeting at Violet Kenny's house on
May 8 and before she reported for work on May 10 she visited Kenny and learned
that Kenny had been fired that morning. Shortly after she reported to work she
was told she was wanted in the office. Edwin Subs, Sonny Subs, and George Freed
were present. Edwin Subs, Sr., told her he had heard of the meeting at Kenny's
house and Bruce denied being present and denied that her husband had been present.
There was further discussion of the Union and then Subs told her, "You go along
with us. We are giving you girls a 100 raise." When she left Subs repeated his
admonition to "go along with us." On further examination Bruce testified that
Edwin Subs, Sr , told her that if the Union did get in all of the girls would go and
he would bring his relatives in to work. The next week Bruce received a 10-cent
increase.ii
On or about June 20, Delia Kee asked Bruce about her attendance at a union
meeting and Bruce again denied attending. It appears from Bruce's testimony that
she thought Kee was referring to a meeting on the previous night but she later
learned that Kee was referring to the May 8 meeting, the only meeting held. After
Kee told her that she knew she was lying because Bounds and Villa had told her
that she (Bruce) had attended, Bruce admitted attending.
Bruce testified that on August 3 she was putting up stock when Sonny Subs asked
her why she had not signed the petition.12 Bruce said she knew nothing about the
petition and in further conversation she told Subs (evidently in explanation of sign-
ing with the Union) that the girls had asked for a nickel raise and had been refused.
8 The supervisory status of Violet Kenny is disputed
Sonny Subs was the son of Edwin F. Subs , owner and president of Tinley. Sonny was
plant and store manager.
m It is a fact that the husbands attended the meeting.
n All salesgirls received this increase . ( General Counsel 's Exhibit No. 5
"According to the testimony of Bounds a petition disavowing the Union had been pre-
pared by a salesgirl named Phyllis Lewis in June . All the girls signed but Bruce
COUNTRY LANE FOOD STORE 691
Sonny told her he had been fighting the Union for years and that the girls had cost
him a lot of money.13
I credit the testimony of Bruce.
c. Other testimony
Janet Rodman, employed as a bookkeeper by Respondent, testified that in June she
had a conversation with Sonny Subs at which George Freed (or Fried) was present.
Freed, identified as a clerical employee, was in the inner office with Suhs and Rodman
was in an adjoining office. The subject of the Union came up and Suhs, standing
between the two offices told Freed and Rodman that they would find his mother and
sister working in the store and that they (Rodman and Freed) would probably be
working there too. He said this would happen before he would have a union in the
store.
Violet Kenny testified that on May 14, 4 days after she was fired, Sonny Suhs called
her at home and asked her to return her uniforms. During their conversation Sonny
told her that he had received a letter from the Union and that he told her he was
not going to have a union and that he would let all the girls go and bring in his
sister, mother, and relatives to operate the store.
Betty Villa testified that she prepared separate letters of resignation from the
Union for the signature of herself, Bounds, and Bruce on August 3. Villa said the
letters were typed by Delia Kee from her handwritten drafts. Villa and Bounds
signed the letters but Bruce refused. The letters, typed in duplicate, were then
sent to Bert C. Bentley, secretary of Tinley, and to the Union. (General Counsel's
Exhibit Nos. 18 a, b, c, d, and e.)
3. Violations of Section 8(a)(3)
a. The status and discharge of Violet Kenny
In January, Kenny was the senior salesgirl . At that time she was receiving $1.30
per hour. At the end of the January 29 pay period she received a 10-cent increase
and at the end of the following pay period she received another 10-cent increase.14
It was at this time that she was given the position designated as night supervisor,
and the increases were her agreed-upon compensation.
According to Sonny Suhs she was told that her responsibilities as night supervisor
would be the same as Delia Kee's on the day shift. (The two shifts overlapped, since
the night shift started at 1 p.m. and concluded shortly after the store closed at 9 p.m.
Kee did not leave until 4 p.m.) Kee was paid a weekly salary of $86 and received
2 weeks vacation and possessed authority to hire and fire, a power specifically
denied Kenny. Suhs' testimony concerning Kenny's new responsibilities is unclear,
except that he wanted someone to be responsible for the night shift.
Kenny's own testimony is that there was no substantial change in her duties after
her promotion except that responsibility after 4 p.m. was fixed on her. All of the
girls performed the same functions interchangeably. They sold to customers, they
stacked shelves, they operated the cash register, and locked the safe and turned off
the lights before they went home. Kenny stated that when she was there she
checked the safe before she left; if she was not there one of the other girls did it.
New girls were referred to Kenny for instructions in the work just as Kenny had been
referred to Mary Bounds when she was employed.15 The duties performed by the
salesgirls were routine and easily learned and did not require the talents of a
Renaissance man. The night shift had operated without a supervisor before Kenny
was appointed and none was hired or appointed after she left.
Upon the testimony of Kenny and other salesgirls I do not find that Kenny
was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.16
Kenny worked the day after the union meeting, May 9, which was the day on
which Villa informed Sonny Suhs of the union meeting . On the next day when
she reported for work her timecard was missing. She went to the office and Edwin
13 This remark was not explained . It could , of course , refer to the 10-cent increase given
the girls.
14 Starting pay was $1.25 with an automatic increase of 10 cents at the end of 3 months.
The discrepancy between these figures and the pay received by Kenny in January is
accounted for by the fact that a 10-cent increase was granted the salesgirls by Respondent
on May 12.
15 Mary Bounds had a record of broken employment with Country. She was senior sales-
girl when Kenny was employed but left, which established Kenny's seniority.
1e Pane State Creamery Co., Inc., 130 NLRB 892.
712-548-64-vol. 142-45
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
F. Suhs was there and told her they could not afford to pay her $1.50 an hour and
were letting her go. Kenny offered to take a cut in pay but the offer was refused-
Suhs said they were cutting expenses and starting with her. She had a further
conversation with Suhs in which she asked if that were the only reason and was
told it was and again offered to take a cut and was again refused. The only
reason given her by the Respondent was economic necessity. No allegation of
improper or inefficient performance on her job was made, although there was
testimony that Kenny had refused to work on a Saturday 17 in April to replace a girl
who was sick.
b. The discharge of Bruce
Bruce, as has been stated, was employed as a salesgirl by Country, attended the
union meeting at Kenny's home and signed an authorization card for the Retail
Clerks. Subsequently she was interrogated as to her union activity by Edwin Suhs,
Sr., and was given a 10-cent raise with the admonition to go along with the
Respondent. In June she was the only girl who refused to sign a petition dis-
claiming the Union and in August she refused to sign a letter withdrawing from
the Union. She testified that on August 3 Sonny Suhs told her all the girls had
signed a petition 18 stating they did not want a union except her and she said she
knew nothing about it. On August 14 Bruce informed Sonny Subs that her family
was moving, that she would not be able to work for a week and that Villa had
agreed to work for her. This arrangement was agreed to by Sonny and Edwin
Suhs, Sr. Bruce then went to the office to collect her pay and her testimony as
to the further conversation follows:
He [Sonny] asked if I had gotten a call from the Union and I said "No"
and he said, "We got a letter from them" and he went on and said it would
have been better if I had signed-withdrew my name. I guess what they meant
if I'd signed the paper along with the other girls or something like that and
I said, "No," I don't know if I would have signed it at that time if I had been
asked" and Mr. Suhs said, "Well, you can still sign this" so he started to go into
the office to get the paper and I said, "No, I'm not going to sign anything now."
Sonny says, "No? Just let it go like it is."
It was this arrangement which led to Bruce's discharge. According to Delia Kee,
and her examination on this point is lengthy and her answers at times were con-
fusing, Villa came to her on Saturday, August 18, and told her that she could not
work for Bruce the next day, Sunday, the 19th. Villa gave Kee the impression that
Bruce might be expecting her to work that day so Kee called Bruce who either
told her she could not be in at all or that she could not be in until 6 p.m. Neither
Bruce nor Villa worked on Sunday. On Tuesday, April 21, Bruce called Kee at her
home but Kee testified nothing was said about Bruce's absence on Sunday. Kee
testified that the next morning, Wednesday, she had a conversation with Sonny
Suhs in which she informed him of Bruce's failure to work on Sunday and Sonny
told her that if it was up to him he would fire Bruce but that Kee could use her
own judgment. When Bruce reported to the store on Wednesday Kee called her
into the office and told her she would have to let her go. Kee told her she was a
good worker but that she had taken hours off without securing a replacement.19
11 Saturday was Kenny's day off and she had made it known that she would not work
on Saturday.
is This apparently refers to the petition which, according to Bounds, was circulated in
June The letters drafted by Villa were mailed on August 3, and were directed to Bert
Bentley, secretary of Tinley. There is no reason to believe that Sonny Suhs knew of these
letters until after August 3 and his statement that all the girls had signed would serve to
confirm the inference that he was referring to the petition.
16 Kee's testimony reads as follows:
Q. And what was said?
A. I told her I would have to let her go, and that I had discussed it with Sonny
that morning, and that he told me that if it was up to him, he would discharge her.
But that I could use my own judgment. I told her I would keep her because of her
good work, which Lois was a very good worker. But I said, that the point that she
took o8 hours without getting a replacement, that that just can't be in the store.
Q. Do you recall anything she said?
A. Yes, she said she thought it was because of union transactions. I told her, "No
it wasn't." That the union didn't have a thing to do with it.
Q And that is as much as you remember of the conversation
A. That is all I remember, sir.
COUNTRY LANE FOOD STORE 693
Bruce's version of the circumstances is not substantially different. Bruce testified
that Villa had agreed to work for her on the day she moved and that the day
she actually moved was Sunday, August 19. However she testified that Villa
had agreed to work for her on Wednesday, April 15 and Saturday, April 19. Since
Bruce's days off were Thursday and Friday there was no need for her to secure
a replacement on those days. (Villa was not questioned by either party as to the
agreement so her understanding is not in the record.) Bruce admits that in the
telephone conversation with Kee and Villa on Saturday both she and Villa told Kee
they could not come in on Sunday. Her testimony reads:
Q. Yes, and what about Sunday, the 19th?
A. She [Villa] had told me two weeks earlier she would work on the day
I moved and Sunday was the day I was going to move.
Q. And did she work for you on Sunday, the 19th?
A. No, she did not. She offered to come in at 5 or 5:30 and I said, "That's
all right with me, if it's all right with you girls."
Q. Did you have any conversation on Sunday, the 19th with any supervisor
of the store?
A. Not Sunday I didn't. Saturday I did.
Q. On Saturday, the 18th, you had a conversation with whom?
A. Deedee [Delia Kee] and Betty [Villa]. Betty said she couldn 't come in.
I said, "I can't either because I'm moving."
Q. What, if anything did Deedee say?
A. I told her I might be able to make it by 5 or 5:30 or 6. No, I said I'd make
it by six. She said, "If you can't make it by six, you don't need to come in."
Q. And this is what Deedee told you on the 18th?
A. That's right. On the 18th, on Saturday.
Q. Now, did you come in at all on Sunday, the 19th?
A. No, I did not.
The next conversation Bruce had with any supervisor at Country was in the telephone
call she made to Kee on Tuesday, the 21st. She told Kee- she was straightened out
and Kee told her she had quit. Bruce denied quitting and told Kee she had informed
her she would give 2 weeks' notice of quitting so a replacement could be found and
Kee repeated her statement that she thought she had quit 20 On Wednesday, Bruce
went to the store to get her check and was told by Sonny Suhs that Kee wanted to talk
to her. When she saw Kee she was told that she was being let go and could have
her check when she turned in her uniform. Bruce admitted that she was told by
Sonny Suhs that he would have fired her for taking off on Sunday. In subsequent
testimony, Bruce admitted that she had gone to the store on Sunday, the 19th, to
purchase food and had met Sonny and told him that Betty was not coming in to
work for her and that Sonny told her her job was more important than moving.
4. Violation of Section 8(a)(5)
The Appropriate Unit and Majority Status
By letter dated May 11, 1962,21 and received by the Respondent on May 12, the
Retail Clerks demanded recognition as bargaining representative in a unit described
therein as follows:
All full-time and part-time employees working for the employer' s retail establish-
ment including and located in Tinley Park, Illinois, excluding professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
The appropriateness of the unit is not disputed and despite the ambiguity of the
description I find that the demand intended to include all employees employed
by Country with the specified exclusions and I find such a unit appropriate for collec-
tive bargaining. On May 11 and on May 12 there were five employees working in
this unit. These were Lois Bruce, Mary Bounds, Betty Villa, Phyllis Lewis, and Jackie
Gray.22 The parties have stipulated and I agree that Delia Kee was supervisor of the
20 Kee, in her testimony, makes no reference to any assumption on her own part that
Bruce had voluntarily quit.
21 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 13.
23 There is dispute as to whether a part-time employee named James Wickerman (or
Wichterman) was employed in the unit . In view of the finding hereinafter made it is un-
necessary to resolve this issue.
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit. I have already found that Violet Kenny was not a supervisor and in view of
the further finding that she was discriminatively discharged on May 10 I find that
she was an employee within the meaning of the Act on May 11 and 12. I therefore
find that the total number of employees in the unit on May 11 and 12 was six.
On May 8 four of these employees had signed authorization cards designating the
Retail Clerks as their bargaining representative. These were Bruce, Bounds, Villa,
and Kenny. On the basis of the signed authorization cards the Retail Clerks
represented four of the six employees in the unit found appropriate on May 11 and 12.
There is, however, testimony in the record which clouds this claim of majority
status.
Betty Villa testified that although she signed an authorization card at the meeting
at Kenny's house on May 8 she had a talk with her husband on the next day in
which she decided to "stay out of the Union and don't get involved in it." She
further testified that "We talked it over, so I didn't [get involved]." Not only did
Villa express her determination to her husband but on either May 9 or May 10 she
went to Sonny Subs and told him "what I had done." She told him of the meeting
at Kenny's home with the union representatives and although she denied telling
Sonny the names of the employees who attended I do not credit this part of her
testimony.23 Although Villa did not sign a withdrawal from the Union until August 3
(Bounds signed on the same day), I find that her action in notifying Suhs of her
signing with the Union, together with her announced decision to her husband to stay
out of the Union, constituted a revocation of her designation. Her conversation with
Suhs took place before the commission of any unfair labor practices on the part
of the Respondent and, in fact, it constituted the first direct confirmation of union
activity at Country. In view of these circumstances, particularly the voluntary
character of Villa's repudiation of the Union, I would not include her among the
employees designating the Retail Clerks as their representative on May 11 or 12.24
I therefore find that the Retail Clerks did not represent a majority of the six
employees in the appropriate unit at the time it demanded recognition from the
Respondent.
Since the Retail Clerks did not represent a majority of the employees at the time
of its demand I shall recommend that the complaint, insofar as it alleges a violation of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act be dismissed.
B. Conclusions
1. Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in the following
instances:
(1) The granting of a 10-cent raise to all the salesgirls employed by Country im-
mediately after the union meeting at the home of Kenny on May 8. Bruce was
notified of this raise by Edward Suhs and the notification occurred during a discussion
of the union meeting and was accompanied by the admonition to her to "go along with
us." The timing and circumstances under which the wage increase was given,
following a refusal to give a 5-cent raise in April, raises a clear inference that the
increase was granted to discourage union activity 25
(2) Interrogation of Bounds as to her union activity by Edwin Subs, Sr., and
interrogation of Bruce by Delia Kee. In neither instance was the interrogation ac-
companied by the safeguards required by the Blue Flash decision,26 and , occurring in a
29 Subs was extremely evasive with respect to the source of his information as to the
meeting at Kenny's home. When directed by his attorney to answer the question of the
General Counsel as to who told him of the meeting his answer was, "The closest to my
recollection, with everybody talking about it, Betty Villa did " Subs' subsequent interroga-
tion of Bruce and Bounds and the discharge of Kenny established his knowledge of the
employees who attended the meeting Such knowledge must have come from Villa.
'' Cf. Cactus Petroleum, Inc, 134 NLRB 1254, where the Board found that the with-
drawals from the Union could be attributed to the employer's unfair labor practices As
anyone who has observed the significant discrepancies which may be found between the
number of employees signing authorization cards and the number who vote in favor of the
designated union at an election conducted by secret ballot can testify, authorization cards
are an unreliable source of establishing majority status When, however, an employer
makes the conduct of a fair election impossible by the commission of unfair labor practices,
no other means may be available.
28 In view of this finding I see no need to pass on the allegation in the complaint that
Respondent promised a wage increase to discourage union activity.
re Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591.
COUNTRY LANE FOOD STORE 695
context of other unfair labor practices, the interrogations reasonably tended to
coerce and restrain the employees in the exercise of their right to engage in union
activity.
(3) Threats by Edwin Suhs, Sr., and by Sonny Suhs to employees Bruce, Bounds,
and Rodman that the Respondent would let all the girls go and employ relatives to
operate the store rather than have a union represent the employees.
The complaint does not allege Respondent's participation in the revocation of
union authority (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 18-a through 18-e, supra) constituted
an unfair labor practice. In his brief to the Trial Examiner, however, the General
Counsel requests that this conduct be found in violation of Section 8(a)(1) on the
ground that it was fully litigated at the hearing and the letters were received in
evidence. In view of this assertion it is necessary to quote from the record, where
the following colloquy took place:
Q. (By the TRIAL EXAMINER.) May I ask what these [the exhibits] are sup-
posed to establish?
A. (By Mr. PERRY.) I'd rather not say.
A. (By Mr. MASLANKA.) Actually they are for the purpose of establishing that
there was an attempt to get these girls to withdraw from the Union, that the
supervisor, Deedee, typed these up, that the Employer got a hold of these things
and knew who withdrew.
Q. (By the TRIAL EXAMINER.) I assumed that was the purpose, but I didn't see
any allegation in the complaint.
A. We are not asking for a finding, they cease doing this any more because
this is one of those things, so they did it once. We are not going to ask him to
stop doing it again. We don't think they ever will do it again but it proves-
or at least we will allege that they knew who refused to sign and knew who
withdrew.
In view of the specific limitation placed upon the purpose of the documents I am
unwilling to consider them for another purpose specifically disavowed at the time of
the offer. The General Counsel may not continually shift positions unequivocally
taken at a hearing to suit his own purposes. McCulloch Corporation, 132 NLRB 201,
203. For that reason I shall not go beyond the scope of the complaint.
2. As to violations of Section 8(a)(3)
As to the discharge of Violet Kenny, I find that it was for reasons discriminatory
within the meaning of the Act and intended to discourage union activity and mem-
bership among the employees of Country. The discharge followed the day after
Respondent learned of the union meeting at Kenny's home and in a context of
expressed hostility toward union organization among the employees of Country
and other unfair labor practices, including specific threats to replace the employees
with members of the Suhs family. Respondent's allegation that the discharge
was motivated by economic necessity does not withstand scrutiny since a large portion
of the savings effected was distributed to the other employees in the form of wage
increases which I have found to have been given for the purpose of discouraging
their union activity. Nor is the asserted excuse consistent with the granting of a
20-cent increase to Kenny only 4 months prior to her discharge. In addition there
is the testimony of Sonny Suhs that only 4 days before the discharge he had asked
Kenny to open the store for him on Sundays during the summer so that he could go
boating and fishing and that he had intended to break her in the duties required.
I think it clear that Suhs had no intention of discharging until he was informed by
Villa of the union meeting . When he received that information the discharge was
precipitate and even Kenny's offer to take a reduction in pay could not avert it. In
his testimony Suhs made several references to a refusal on the part of Kenny to
work on Saturdays and a specific refusal to work on one Saturday in April when a
girl called in sick. I find no casual connection between this refusal, long known
to the Respondent, and Kenny's discharge. In N.L.R.B. v. Wayne W. Wilson Co.,
311 F. 2d I (C.A. 6) the court stated:
The conjunction in time with union activity rather than violation of work
rules substantiates the inference that the lay-offs were for union activity rather
than the violations. Moreover, the prior finding that the employer opposed the
union organization effort by coercing the employees lends support to the con-
clusion that his motives for discharge of union adherents were impermissible
under the law.
I agree, and find the discharge of Kenny in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The case of Bruce presents a more difficult decision . She was admittedly the
only employee at the plant in August who had refused to disavow the Union.
Respondent 's knowledge of this is clearly established by the conversation between
Bruce and the two Suhses on August 14 when she arranged to be absent . I credit
her version of the conversation in full . On the other hand there is the fact that she
failed to appear for work on Sunday, August 19, when requested to do so and like-
wise failed to provide a replacement . The record is clear that arrangements for
substitutions could be made among the girls without interference from Delia Kee
but in this case the arrangement failed and Bruce had knowledge that it would fail.
While there is no showing in the record that the failure of both Bruce and Villa to
report for work had serious impact on Respondent 's operation of its store or that it
suffered pecuniary damage as a result of Bruce's failure, nevertheless , it warranted
discipline . In the absence of evidence of unlawful motive it is not the business of a
Trial Examiner to determine the quality or nature of the discipline to be meted and an
employer may of course discharge an employee for no reason at all. But the record
in this case contains evidence of continuing unfair labor practices on the part of
Respondent and a prior discharge for an unlawful motive . Specifically as to Bruce,
she was interrogated by Edwin Subs, Sr., and Sonny Subs as to her union activity on
May 10 and was told to "go along with us." On May 20 she was interrogated by
Delia Kee and finally admitted attending the union meeting. On August 3 and
again on August 14 she was asked why she had not signed the petition disclaiming
union activity . Thus from the time Respondent learned of union activity until her
last working day Respondent had engaged in coercive interrogation as to her union
activity and had made efforts to obtain her disavowal of union activity, efforts which
proved fruitless . The summary discharge of Kenny for holding a union meeting
at her home establishes that Respondent had no scruples against violating Section 8(3)
of the Act. When this disregard for the statute is considered in conjunction with the
nature of Bruce's offense ; the fact that Kenny had refused to work on a Saturday
when requested without penalty; that no other girl had ever been fired for failure
to report ; that none of the girls had complained to Kee because of the additional
burden imposed by Bruce's absence and the fact that Bruce was conceded to be a
good worker , I find the asserted reason spurious.
This is a case in which conflicting inferences may reasonably be drawn but a
balancing of the facts and the testimony leans more heavily on the side of unlawful
than lawful motive. It is my conclusion that the actual as distinguished from the
alleged motive for the discharge of Bruce was her union membership and her refusal
to disavow it. Accordingly I find the discharge in violation of Section 8 (a) (3).
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair
labor practices , I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Although I have found that Respondent discharged Kenny in violation of the Act
I shall not recommend immediate reinstatement or backpay . The evidence in the
record indicates that, at least to the time of the hearing , no replacement was hired
for Kenny either as night supervisor or as salesgirl . Since, at the time of her discharge,
Kenny's pay and responsibilities were distinguishable from that of the other salesgirls,
I shall not recommend that Respondent discharge a salesgirl to provide employment
for Kenny . It will, however , be recommended that Kenny be given preferential hiring
status and that she shall be offered reinstatement for the first position , either as night
supervisor or as salesgirl , which becomes available at Country. Reinstatement, as
provided herein , shall be without prejudice to Kenny's seniority status or other rights
and privileges.
Having found that Respondent discriminated against Bruce by discharging her on
August 22 in violation of the Act , I shall recommend that it make her an immediate
offer of reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to her seniority status or other rights and privileges . I shall further
recommend that Respondent make Bruce whole for any loss of pay she may have
suffered by reason of said discrimination against her by the payment of a sum of
money equal to the amount she would normally have earned from the date of
discharge , less any net earning during the period , said sum to be computed
in accordance with the Woolworth formula.27 Interest at the rate of 6 percent per
27 F. TV Woolworth Co , 90 NLRB 289
COUNTRY LANE FOOD STORE 697
annum on said sum shall also be paid Bruce in accordance with the Board 's decision
in Isis Plumbing.28
In view of the nature and extent of the unfair labor practices , including the threat
to get rid of the employees of Country and operate the store with the family, and
because discriminatory discharges go to the heart of the Act, the commission of other
unfair labor practices may reasonably be anticipated . I shall therefore recommend
that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from interfering with the exercise
of the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 "in any other manner."
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Retail Clerks is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
3. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating against Violet Kenny and Lois Bruce with respect to their
hire and tenure of employment , thereby discouraging membership in a labor organiza-
tion , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not refused to bargain in good faith with the Retail Clerks
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this case , it is recommended that Tinley Park Dairy Co., d/b/a
Country Lane Food Store, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees regarding their attendance at union meetings and
concerning their union membership and sympathy; granting its employees a wage
increase to discourage union membership and activity ; threatening its employees with
loss of jobs and threatening them that Country would be run by "the family" if they
selected a union as their representative.
(b) Discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of the Retail Clerks
Union, Local 1540, AFL-CIO, by discharging any of its employees, or discriminating
against them in regard to hire and tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment.
(c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer Lois Bruce immediate and full reinstatement to her former or to a sub-
stantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination practiced against her, as provided in "The Remedy"
section of this Intermediate Report.
(b) Place Violet Kenny upon a preferential hiring list and offer her reinstatement
to her former position as night supervisor if and when such position becomes available
or offer her a position as salesgirl with Country if and when such a position becomes
available. Such offer shall be made to Kenny before any other persons, other
than Lois Bruce, are hired for work as night supervisors or salesgirls at Country.
Reinstatement shall be without prejudice to Kenny's seniority status and other
rights and privileges.
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the National Labor Relations
Board or its agents for examining and copying all payroll and other records neces-
sary for computation of the amount of backpay due as herein provided. Make avail-
able all hiring records to determine whether any person has been hired by Country
28 Isis Plumbing d. Seating Co., 137 NLRB 716.
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for a position for which Kenny is qualified between the date of the close of the
hearing and the issuance of this report.
(d) Post at its Country Lane Food Store at Tinley Park, Illinois, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 29 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the
Regional Director of the Thirteenth Region shall, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order what steps Respondent has
taken to comply herewith.30
It is further recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges Re-
spondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and as
to any other violations not specifically found herein.
29 If 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. If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals,
the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "A Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the words "A Decision and Order."
31 If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in writing, within 10
days from the date of this Order, what steps the 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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT ask our employees if they have attended union meetings.
WE WILL NOT increase the wages of our employees to discourage them in their
right to belong to Local 1504, Retail Clerks International Association, or any
other union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to fire all our employees and run the store with mem-
bers of our families if our employees join Local 1504, Retail Clerks International
Association, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT discharge any employees because they joined Local 1504, Retail
Clerks International Association, or any other union.
WE WILL offer reinstatement as an employee to Lois Bruce and make her whole
for any loss of pay she may have suffered because of our discrimination against
her.
WE WILL place Violet Kenny on a preferred hiring list and will offer her her
former job back before we hire anyone to take her place.
All our employees are free to become members of Local 1504, Retail Clerks
International Association, or any other union, and they are also free not to become
members of any union unless in the future we shall enter into a lawful union-shop
contract with a union which represents our employees.
TINLEY PARK DAIRY CO., D/B/A
COUNTRY LANE FOOD STORE,
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, Midland
Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60603, Telephone No. Central
6-9660, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.