F. W. Woolworth Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1457 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 1457
pated from Respondent 's past conduct , the undersigned will not recommend
that Respondent cease and desist from the commission of any and all other
unfair labor pratcices."
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Cement, Lime & Gypsum Workers International Union, Local No. 89,
affiliated with American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All employees performing work at Respondent's Colton, California, plant
in the manufacture of cement or lime, and all work incidental thereto, but ex-
cluding employees engaged in the transportation of such products upon the public
highways or agriculture work, superintendent, assistant superintendent, chief
chemist, assistant chief chemist, research chemists, general plant foreman,
master mechanic, all department heads, technical engineers and draftsmen, safety
supervisor, assistant safety supervisor, personnel man, guards, three clerks, and
supervisory or professional employees as defined in the Act, constitute, and during
all times material herein constituted, a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Cement, Lime & Gypsum Workers International Union, Local No. 89,
affiliated with American Federation of Labor, at all times material herein has
been, and still is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the above-
described appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing (1) to furnish the Union with a written list of the compensation
paid to, and the vacation rights, holiday rights, and sick leave rights of, its
salaried employees; (2) to furnish the Union, in writing, the overtime allocated
to, and worked by, the salaried employees; (3) to divulge the compensation of
the posted jobs; and (4) discuss or negotiate with the Union proposed wage
increases given persons in the bargaining unit and grievances presented by the
Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in 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.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
17 See The B. F. Goodrich Co., 89 NLRB 1151.
F. W. WOOLWORTH Co. and RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 324 OF RE-
TAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases
Nos. 01-RC-1835 and 21-CA-1167. December °9, 1952
Decision and Orders
On April 15, 1952, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Inter-
mediate Report in this consolidated proceeding, finding that the Re-
101 NLRB No. 213.
1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also recom-
mended that the election held in Case No. 21-RC-1835 on July 10,
1951, be set aside. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and
recommended dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the General
Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and supporting briefs.
The Board 1 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations, with the following exceptions and
modifications :
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, by the conduct of Store Man-
ager H. C. Brebner, in (1) interrogating employees about their union
activities, (2) conducting meetings at which he told employees (a)
the Respondent would never sign a contract with the Union even if
it became the bargaining representative of the employees, (b) that
employees would get lower wages if the Union succeeded in organizing
the store, (c) that in the event of a strike by the employees he would
prevent the employees from securing employment elsewhere, (d) that
he knew which employees were union members and which ones at-
tended union meetings,z and (e) that the employees did not need a
union because "he would meet any union conditions"; and by the
conduct of Supervisor Blackley in raising the pay of one of the em-
ployees because she was "with them, and deserved it."
2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) by scheduling a meeting for the hour immediately before
the election on July 10, 1951. The Respondent excepts to this finding,
contending that a finding based on the time and place of an employer's
speech contravenes Section 8 (c) and the first amendment and is con-
trary to the cases cited by the Trial Examiner to support such a finding.
However, Brebner's speech on July 10, 1951, repeated some of the
statements which we have already found violative of Section 8 (a) (1).
'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 Herzog and
Members Styles and Peterson].
3 As such a statement creates the impression that the Employer had engaged in sur-
veillance , it violates Section 8 (a) (1), whether or not he did so . F. W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289.
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 1459
Accordingly, we need not, and do not, here decide whether the mere
timing of a speech can violate the Act.
3. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that there is insuffi-
cient evidence to establish that Lamb was demoted from her super-
visory position because she refused to spy upon the Union. It is be-
cause the evidence adduced by the General Counsel did not prepond-
erate in favor of such a finding that we agree with the Trial Examiner
that the allegation in the complaint that Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) was
violated as to Lamb should be dismissed. In reaching this conclusion,
we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's additional reason that because
union activities by a supervisor are no longer protected by the Act
they are necessarily illegal .3
4. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that there is no merit to the Re-
spondent's contention that by proceeding with the election on July 10,
1951, with knowledge of the Respondent's interference with the elec-
tion, the Union waived its right to raise such conduct as a basis for
having the election set aside. The Board has held that there can be
no waiver of objections to an election where the coercive conduct con-
tinues up to the very date of the election .4 As the Respondent's co-
ercive conduct in this case continued up to the hour before the elec-
tion, we base our finding that the Union did not waive its right to ob-
ject to the election on this reason alone, and not on the other reasons
given by the Trial Examiner.
5. As we find sufficient warrant from the Trial Examiner's specific
findings on the objections to the election of July 10, 1951, we shall
order that that election be set aside.5 We shall direct a new election
at such time as the Regional Director advises of the existence of condi-
tions permitting a free choice.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, F. W. Woolworth
Co., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees as to their union membership; and
conducting meetings at which the employees are told that (1) the
Company will not sign a contract with the Retail Clerks Union, Local
324, of Retail International Association, AFL, even if such organ-
ization is elected bargaining representative of the employees; or (2)
8 See The Texas Company , 93 NLRB 1358, 1364-1366.
4 See Squirrel Brand Co., Inc ., 96 NLRB 179.
e Accordingly we need not , and do not , adopt the Trial Examiner 's additional reasons
for recommending the setting aside of the election.
242305--53-93
1460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that in the event of a strike the employees would be prevented by the
Respondent from securing employment elsewhere in Long Beach,
California; or (3) that the Respondent had union meetings watched,
and knew which employees were union members and attended union
meetings; or threatening its employees with economic reprisal in the
event they voted for the afore-mentioned Union, or promising them
benefits as to working conditions in the event they voted against the
afore-mentioned Union; or raising the pay of employees for refrain-
ing from union activities.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing or to engage in other concerted ac-
tivity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as author-
ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its store in Long Beach, California, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix." 6 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Twenty-first Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent,
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this
Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraph 5 of the complaint and ob-
jections to the election numbered 1, 3, and 5 be dismissed for lack of
proof.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the election held in Case No. 21-RC-1835 be,
and it hereby is, set aside 7
e This notice shall he amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner ," the words "A Decision and Order " If this Order is enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall be further amended by substi-
tuting for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " in the caption , the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
I When the Regional Director advises the Board that the circumstances permit a free
choice of representatives , we shall direct that a new election be held among the Respondent's
employees.
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1461
On March 6, 1951, Retail Clerks Union, Local 324 of Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL, herein called the Union, filed with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, a petition for certification of representatives
for the employees in a certain appropriate unit at the Long Beach, California,
store of F. W. Woolworth Co., herein called the Respondent or the Company.
Thereafter the Board, on June 18, 1951, issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion which directed that an election by secret ballot be conducted among said
employees to determine whether or not they desired to be represented for the
purposes of collective bargaining by the Union.
Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election, an election by secret ballot
was conducted on July 10, 1951. At the election, a majority of the votes was
cast against the Union.
On July 16, 1951, the Union filed with the Board timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election, and objections to the election. Thereafter,
on October 2, 1951, the Regional Director of the Board (Twenty-first Region, Los
Angeles, California) issued his report on objections. in which he recommended
that the Board direct a hearing on the objections On October 25, 1951, the
Board issued an order, directing a hearing on the issues raised by the Union's
objections.
Upon a charge and amended charge duly filed by the Union, the General
Counsel of the Board, herein called the General Counsel,' on November 19, 1951,
issued a complaint alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, herein called the Act. The complaint, as amended by motions
made at the hearing, alleged that the Respondent. by various acts and conduct
had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and had discriminatorily demoted
Mildred Lamb.
The Respondent in its answer denied generally and specifically the commission
of any unfair labor practices. It also alleged as an affirmative defense that (1)
neither the charge against Employer, the amended charge, nor the complaint
complied with the provisions of Section 102 12 of the Rules and Regulations
of the Board, Series 6, effective March 1, 1951, in that neither the charge nor the
amended charge was specific as to facts, names, addresses, and places, etc. ;
(2) that the complaint did not comply with the provisions of Section 102.15 of the
Rules and Regulations of the Board, supra, in that it did not state the unfair
labor practices with definiteness and certainty; and (3) that neither the com-
plaint, the charge, nor the amended charge complied with the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U. S. C. A. Section 1004) in that said documents
were not specific as to the time, the place, or the nature of the acts therein alleged.
On December 3, 1951, the Respondent made a demand and moved for a bill of
particulars as to the objections to election, and the allegations of unfair labor
practice in the complaint. On December 20, 1951, Trial Examiner Irving
Rogosin, to whom Respondent's motions had been referred, ordered that the
General Counsel supply certain particulars to the Respondent as to the allegations
set forth in the objections to election, and the allegations of unfair labor
i The representative of the General Counsel at the hearing is also referred to as the
General Counsel in this Report.
1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practice set forth in the complaint. Thereafter this order was complied with.
On November 19, 1951, the Regional Director issued an order consolidating
the cases, and a notice of hearing thereon. Pursuant to said notice a hearing
was held at Los Angeles, California, on January 10, 11, and 14, 1952, before
David F. Doyle, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Associ-
ate Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, the Respondent, and Union
were each represented by counsel. All parties participated in the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues.
At the close of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the General Counsel rested.
The Respondent thereupon moved for the dismissal of the complaint and the
objections to election on the ground that the General Counsel had failed to
present sufficient evidence to sustain either. This motion was denied by the
undersigned. Thereupon the Respondent also rested, without offering additional
evidence. Thereafter the General Counsel and the Respondent submitted briefs
which have been considered.
Respondent's Motions
At the opening of the hearing, Respondent made several motions addressed to
the pleadings and bills of particulars in both the above-captioned cases. Re-
spondent contended in these motions that the bills of particulars furnished by
the General Counsel did not supply sufficient information as to the allegations
of the complaint or the objections to the election. These motions were denied
by the undersigned as the pleadings as amplified by the bills of particulars
appeared adequate in all respects.
At the close of all the evidence, Respondent moved for the dismissal of the
objections to the election on the ground that the procedure followed by the
Board and the General Counsel in Case No. 21-RC-1835 was not in accordance
with the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, or the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act, Section 3. In support of this contention, Respondent pointed out
that there is no provision in the Rules and Regulations, or statement of pro-
cedures, as printed in the Federal Register for a hearing on objections, and
pointed out that Section 102.61 (b) of the Rules and Regulations provides for a
hearing on exceptions. Therefore, according to counsel for the Respondent,
the hearing on objections herein was invalid. I find that contention to be with-
out merit. The absence of a published rule regarding a hearing on objections
does not invalidate these proceedings?
Furthermore, the procedure herein followed has afforded the Respondent the
broadest and fullest opportunity to defend its conduct on all points covered by
the objections. Nor has the procedure followed resulted in any prejudice to the
Respondent. I, therefore, deny the motion.
Upon the record in the case and from his observations of the witnesses, the
undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
The Respondent, F. W. Woolworth Co., is a New York corporation owning
and operating some 1,800 retail variety stores located in all the States of the
United States. In connection with its business Respondent operates a store at
9 Foreman and Clark, Inc, 98 NLRB 530.
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 1463
335 Pine Avenue , Long Beach , California , where it is engaged in the business of
retailing merchandise . During the calendar year ending December 31, 1950,
Respondent purchased for resale at its Long Beach store, merchandise valued
in excess of $200 ,000, approximately 60 percent by value of such purchases being
shipped directly to the Long Beach store from points outside the State of Cali-
fornia. During the same period , Respondent's Long Beach store sold merchan-
dise valued in excess of $225,000 ; less than 1 percent in value of such merchandise
being shipped to points outside the State of California.
It is conceded in the pleadings , and I find that at all times material herein
the Respondent has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Clerks Union , Local 324 of Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background ; undisputed facts
Prior to February 1, 1951 , the employees of the Respondent 's Long Beach,
California , store were not represented by a union . For some years prior to
that time the manager of the store was one Lusk . Among the supervisory
personnel assisting him were Mildred Lamb , personnel supervisor , and Lois
Blackley and Dorothy Schlitz , floor supervisors . Agnes Fesmire, hereafter
referred to, was an employee.
Around January 1, 1951 , Lusk was transferred to another store of the Com-
pany and was replaced by a new manager named H . C. Brebner , who assumed
active direction of the store on or about January 20,1951.
Shortly after Brebner 's advent at the store , the first organizational efforts of
the Union occurred . It is undisputed that shortly after Brebner took charge
of the store Mrs. Lamb , the personnel supervisor previously referred to, felt
slighted by Brebner , and thereafter was piqued at him . In her cross-examination
Mrs. Lamb testified that shortly after Brebner took over control of the store, he
began to consult with Supervisor Lois Blackley more frequently than he con-
sulted with Mrs. Lamb . It is undisputed that Mrs. Lamb was technically in
charge of the sales force in the absence of the manager , and thus was second in
command in the store . She was the highest ranking woman employee, and for
5 years past had hired and fired employees and instructed them in their duties.
Mrs. Lamb's pique evidenced itself in several ways . She refrained from con-
sulting with the store manager and "did not take things" to Brebner . Also it is
undisputed that she joined the Union and participated in the Union 's organiza-
tional campaign . She obtained authorization cards from the Union and passed
them out to some of the employees . She attended all the meetings of the Union,
and talked to employee Fesmire about attending these meetings , and urging
other girls to attend.
It is also undisputed that management had a practice of holding a weekly
meeting of all sales personnel . During the regime of Lusk as manager, these
meetings were held on Saturday mornings , but Brebner changed the meeting
day to Thursday . It is undisputed that during the time the Union was attempt-
ing to organize the employees that the unionization of employees was the principal
topic, if not the exclusive topic, discussed at these meetings , at which Brebner
presided and did most of the talking.
1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about May 6, 1951, Mrs. Lamb was demoted by Brebner from the position
of personnel supervisor to salesgirl at the hardware counter. It is also undis-
puted thaC'at about the time Brebner took charge of the store, a number of
rumors spread among the employees in the store. These rumors were to the
effect that the new manager had stated that (1) the salesgirls were the "slop-
piest bunch" that he had ever seen; (2) that the girls would have to be more
regular in attendance, as illness was no excuse for absence; (3) that the new
manager was going to require each girl to mop up behind her own counter ; and
(4) that the new manager did not like the girls and was going to fire them. In
her cross-examination, Mrs. Lamb admitted that she had heard some of these
rumors, but did not communicate the fact of the rumors to Brebner.
B The demotion of Mildred Lamb
It is the contention of the General Counsel that Brebner instituted an anti-
union campaign, and that as part of it he asked Mrs. Lamb to spy upon the
employees and find out who belonged to the Union ; that she refused to spy upon
the employees, and for that reason was discharged. It is the contention of the
Company that Mrs. Lamb was demoted because Brebner thought that she had
given store information to the Union, was the instigator of the Union, and had
been disloyal to the Company. It is undisputed that when Brebner demoted
Mrs. Lamb he told her that he felt that she had given company information to the
Union, was the instigator of the Union, and was disloyal to the Company.
Mrs. Lamb was the chief witness for the General Counsel. In support of his
contention, she testified on direcb examination that she had been the personnel
supervisor for 5 years prior to her demotion. As personnel supervisor she hired
and fired salesgirls, supervised the work of the girls on the floor, made out their
time cards, and dealt with their various routine requests for changes in working
hours, etc. She testified that the Union's organizational campaign began about
March 1, 1951. About March 15, 1951, she was summoned to Brebner's office.
In the presence of two cashiers, he asked her if she had heard rumors that a
union was attempting to organize the employees. Lamb told Brebner that she had
heard such rumors before but they had never amounted to anything. Brebner
said to .her, "You had better get back on the floor and find out who joined the
union and how far this has gone." Lamb did not carry out Brebner's instructions,
nor did she make any report to him thereafter about any union activity.
About a week later, in another conversation, Brebner told Mrs. Lamb that
someone had given out store information, and that she was the only one who had
access to the files. Lamb denied this charge. Around the first of April Brebner
called Lamb to the fountain at the store. He requested her to speak at one of
the Thursday meetings and to tell the girls that she was sorry that she had
joined the Union, and that she had changed her mind about the Union. Lamb
told him that she didn't think she could comply with the request and Brebner
admonished her to think it over.
On another occasion Lamb and Dorothy Schlitz, a floor supervisor, were re-
quested by Brebner to tell the girls at one of the meetings that they had changed
their minds about the Union. He informed the two supervisors that he felt that
they could sway the employees, and that if Lamb and Schlitz did not come over
to his side he might as well give up. Schlitz and Lamb did not give him a definite
answer, but told him that they would think it over. In the conversation Brebner
also asked them to give him permission to use their names so that he could tell
the girls that they had changed their minds about the Union, and be asked them
to consider that proposition. On the following morning, both Lamb and Schlitz
went to Brebner and refused to speak at the meeting and forbade him to use
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 1465
their names . According to Lamb the girls told Brebner that they would remain
neutral , but Brebner said he didn 't want that, and that they would have to be
on one side of the fence or the other.
On or about May 6, at about 5 p. m., Brebner called Mrs . Lamb to his office.
He told her he was going to make a change in personnel and that he had decided
in his own mind that she had given out store information , was the instigator
of the Union , and had been disloyal to the Company . He stated that he had
an opening on the drug counter and asked Lamb if she wanted the position.
She answered that the position would suit her fine. A few days thereafter she
was demoted to the position of salesgirl at the hardware counter at $40 per week.
Her salary as personnel supervisor was $47 per week. At a meeting of employees,
at about this time, Brebner told the employees that he was making Mrs. Blackley
personnel supervisor in place of Mrs. Lamb, not because of any lack of ability
on the latter 's part, but because he was certain that she had given out store
information and had been disloyal to the Company , and because he felt that
Mrs. Blackley would be a better supervisor . In this talk he said that Mrs. Lamb
could not "see his way" and wouldn't cooperate with him and he felt Mrs . Blackley
would cooperate.
Cross-examination of Mrs. Lamb developed quite a different picture. She
testified that during the last part of the Lusk regime she performed the duties
of order girl and floor supervisor as part of her general supervisory duties. When
Brebner took over the store he made a change in which the position of order
girl was created. Order girls thereafter performed all the ordering for the
counters . Previously each girl had ordered for her own counter . Brebner asked
Lamb to make reports to him of any complaints received from the employees.
Lamb made one such report concerning an employee whose purse had been ran-
sacked. The criticism of Brebner started after he had been in charge of the
store about 3 weeks. Lamb stated that the girls could not understand why
Brebner himself didn't tell them what to do, instead of sending his orders by the
floor supervisors . Also, there were various rumors that went the rounds of the
store that Brebner had said that the girls were a sloppy bunch, and that all the
girls were going to be fired. Lamb did not report either of these rumors, though
she heard them. Lamb denied that she heard a rumor that Brebner wanted the
girls to mop up behind the counters . She stated that she herself had heard
Brebner say that illness was no excuse for absence from the job.
Lamb admitted that in one of the Thursday morning meetings Brebner told
the girls that he had heard a rumor in which he was supposed to have said that
the girls were the sloppiest bunch he had ever seen , and he denied that he had
made any such statement. After this meeting he asked Lamb to help him to stop
the rumors , and to get him the true facts as to the basis of any rumors. Lamb
did not talk to any of the girls about these rumors, nor did she report anything
about them to Brebner . Lamb admitted that Brebner had told her personally,
and had stated in meetings , that he didn 't really care if the girls joined the
Union if they felt they would gain by it.
On cross-eaanvination Lamb stated that in a meeting held approximately May 10,
Brebner told the girls , "The entire issue seems to be will you stick by Mr . Brebner
or Mrs. Lamb. Each employee must make up his or her mind on this choice."
At one of the meetings Brebner also said , "It is my impression there is a feeling
I am persecuting Mrs. Lamb. I would like to bring all of you up to date as to
what has been going on at this time. When I found out that you girls are being
contacted by union organizers, I called Mrs. Lamb into the office and said that
I had heard that organizers were contacting the girls at home. And I asked
Mrs. Lamb if she knew anything about it. Mrs. Lamb said she had heard some
1466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rumors to this effect but didn 't think that they were of any importance. I then
told Mrs. Lamb that I really didn 't care if the girls joined a union if they felt
they would gain by it. That anybody had a right to belong to any organization
that they wanted to belong to." Also, "As time went on some of you girls came
to me and told me you didn 't want to join a union and were being told that you
would have to, and that someone was telling the girls that I had said a lot of
things against them . In fairness to the girls who wanted no part in union
membership , and in fairness to myself , I then had to take steps to combat this
thing."
Also on cross-examination , Lamb testified that during March Brebner had a
meeting of the floor supervisors and Lamb in his office . In addition to Lamb,
Blackley , Schlitz, and Eddy were present. At this meeting Brebner told the
supervisors that he would like to bring to their attention that they were super-
visory employees and that it was unlawful under the Federal law for them to en-
courage or discourage union membership . He explained that they were required
by law to stay absolutely neutral on that issue and that it was up to them to mind
their own business as supervisors . He also pointed out that supervisory employ-
ees were not allowed to attend union meetings and were not allowed to vote in
employee elections . Brebner told the supervisors that any infraction of the
law would compel him to take the supervisor concerned off the supervisory job
immediately . He also told them that if for any reason they were dissatisfied
with their jobs as supervisory employees , he would be most happy to discuss
the matter with them , and he was sure that between them , they could arrange a
different position in the store which would be mutually satisfactory.
On cross-examination , Lamb testified that at another store meeting Brebner
told the girls that he had received no complaints from them , and that up to that
morning he had been forced to go on the assumption that they were all happy and
satisfied with the job . In the course of the meeting he denied that he had said
the girls were a sloppy bunch , etc. On this occasion Brebner also denied any
intention of firing all the girls . He stated that he had never beard of such a
mass firing ; that the Company and himself, as manager , had no such intention,
and he assured the girls that their jobs were secure. He also stated that he had
learned of a rumor about the girls mopping up behind their counters , because
some of the girls had asked him where the mop was, and that he had told those
girls not to mind about that because the night man would do any mopping that
was necessary . Lamb stated that Brebner could have made the following state-
ment, "I have heard it said that I have said an employee has no business being
off the job , and being sick is no excuse . That doesn't make sense to me because
I have been off the job due to illness and certainly all of us are going to be ill
and unable to work." The witness did recollect that Brebner had said,
"Rumors are vicious things , girls, and I would like to ask all of you to judge
anything you might hear for yourself , and remember I am always more than
willing to talk to all or any one of you in regard to any questions or problems
that you may have."
On cross-examination , Lamb admitted that Brebner had talked to her as
follows on or about March 24,1951:
I talked to you last week regarding rumors I have heard as to some of our
employees seeking outside representation . You said you had heard some
rumors too , to that effect . I asked you at that time, as personnel super-
visor , to tell me of any dissatisfaction to date. You have neither told me
you have or have not heard of any dissatisfaction among our employees. In
the meantime I have heard from other sources some statements of dissatis-
faction or difficulties among our employees . These statements were reviewed
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 1467
generally in our store meeting this morning. Let us again review them one
by one. One, the new manager sometimes fired girls ; two, the manager
makes the girls mop behind the counter ; three, you are the sloppiest bunch
of girls I have ever seen ; four, sickness is no excuse for being off the job.
Now I have also heard it said no one can talk to me. Yet to my knowledge,
no one has tried to talk to me. Could it be possible they have been stopped
before they could talk to me about any dissatisfaction or problem of any
kind?
I have heard someone holding a management position in our store took
confidential information to an outside organization . That is definitely
against store rules and any employee giving confidential information to
outsiders is subject to immediate dismissal.
Now all of these things have seemingly been going on and you have not
heard anything about them or have heard them and have not brought
them to my attention. The above information gives rise to a question in
my mind as to whether you are capable of handling your position as
personnel supervisor, or if you just do not want to do it in the proper manner.
Lamb admitted that on one occasion she, Schlitz and Brebner conferred about
2% hours. In that conversation Brebner told the girls that he was aware of
what they had done and how this thing had started, and that possibly they
felt they had justification for doing it. He asked each of them just what he
had done, and what was wrong in the store, and what steps he could take
to correct any wrong. Lamb stated that on that occasion Brebner apologized
to her because when he first came to the store he asked her about the girls on
the counters, but that later he went to Miss Blackley for that information. He
apologized for his conduct in that matter. Lamb testified that in that conversa-
tion she and Schlitz told Brebner that they would be neutral. She admitted
that in that conversation Brebner told Schlitz and herself that what they did
outside the store didn't matter as long as they stayed neutral in the store. Also,
that Brebner said that it did not matter what they did for the Union at night, as
long as they did their jobs fairly during the day.
From all the evidence on this point it is clear that Lamb was, if not the
leader of the Union, at least one of its most prominent members. There can
be no question but that she, as the employees' immediate supervisor, had great
influence upon the employees. She was the supervisor who had final authority
over their hiring and firing, rate of pay, and promotions , and she had authority to
grant the various requests which they would make in the ordinary course of
business. It is undisputed that she obtained authorization cards from the
Union, distributed them to some employees, and solicited the attendance of
employee Fesmire, and through Fesmire the attendance of other employees, at
the union meetings. This conduct by a supervisor was unlawful. In the course
of the organizational campaign, Lamb attended all union meetings , even after,
by her own admission, she had promised Brebner to stay neutral.
It is obvious that Brebner was the victim of several unfounded rumors that
went through the store, and that Lamb as personnel supervisor concealed these
rumors from Brebner. Under all the circumstances here present, it appears
to me that Brebner's demotion of Lamb was a disciplinary measure which
Lamb's conduct forced upon Brebner. Lamb was a supervisor of long standing,
aware of her influence over the employees. It appears that she was motivated
by spite and pique to assist the Union as a means of discomfiting Brebner.
On the basis of Lamb's conduct, Brebner could very reasonably have reached
the conclusion, which he did, that Lamb was the instigator of the Union, that
1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she had divulged store information to the Union, and that she had been disloyal
to the Company. Certainly, Lamb's concealment of the rumors among the em-
ployees, her assistance to the Union, her deceptive report to Brebner that the
Union's organization campaign was merely a rumor, and her constant attendance
at union meetings, gave substantial basis to that conclusion by Brebner.
In all the many conversations that took place between Brebner and Lamb there
is only one item of conversation which the General Counsel claims as the basis
for Lamb's discharge-that is, that Brebner asked Lamb to spy upon the Union.
In the light of all the evidence on this point, I find that there is insufficient
credible evidence to support that contention of the General Counsel. All the
evidence on this point is furnished by Lamb herself. Lamb's own testimony
on cross-examination establishes that Brebner's actions were directed to ob-
taining Lamb's neutrality. Lamb's own testimony has established that she is
spiteful and vindictive toward Brebner. I feel constrained to accept the testi-
mony of Lamb on cross-examination, which depicts Brebner's conduct as lawful,
rather than her direct testimony which places a connotation on Brebner's words,
which appears to be incredible in view of the testimony of Lamb on cross-exami-
nation. I find, therefore, that the demotion of Lamb, who was a supervisor,
and who had violated the clear mandate of the Act, and the directions of her
superior, to refrain from engaging in or interfering with the employees' union
activities, was a demotion for disciplinary reasons, and was justified in the
circumstances here present'
C. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Employees Margaret Wullenweber, Betty Lewis, Bonita Frush, Delma Fergu-
son, and Hannah Rogers also testified as witnesses for the General Counsel.
All of these witnesses testified in a candid and frank manner. Their uncon-
troverted testimony was mutually corroborative on some features of the case,
principally as to statements made by Brebner at the Thursday morning meet-
ings. I credit their testimony fully. Individual instances of interrogation of
these employees will be later reviewed.
The testimony of these witnesses established that from the time the Union
began its organizational campaign about February 21, 1951, until after the
election on July 10, 1951, the principal topic discussed by Brebner at the meetings
of the sales force was the union campaign. These witnesses are in agreement
that at these meetings Brebner stated that the Company would not sign a con-
tract with the Union even if the employees chose the Union as their repre-
sentative. Also, he told the girls that in the event that they had a strike that
many of them who did not have husbands to support them would suffer ; that
he would put a cash register in front of the store and pay the public to enter
the store. He also said that in the event they struck, he would see to it that
none of the girls was able to obtain other employment in the city of Long Beach.
In the course of one of the meetings, Brebner stated that he had promoted
Agnes Fesmire from the position of employee to that of floor supervisor. He
said that about the time ` he promoted Fesmire she came to him and confessed
to him that she was a member of the Union, and told him that she was sorry
8In making this finding, I have concluded that the testimony of Margaret Wullenweber
that Brebner told her that he had asked Lamb to find out who belonged to the Union is
outweighed by Lamb's testimony on cross-examination. In the light of all the circum-
stances surrounding this demotion , and upon a consideration of the conduct of all par-
ticipants in this incident, I am convinced that the above finding is proper.
4 The testimony of the witnesses is not clear on the point of whether Brebner promoted
Fesmire before or after her disclosure of union membership.
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 1469k
that she had joined the Union . Brebner said that she had named to him all
the girls who had joined the Union . At this meeting , at which Brebner made
these statements , Fesmire was present, but she did not rise to contradict or deny
the statement . Prior to the election Brebner told the girls that he knew who
belonged to the Union , as he had friends who had kept the union meeting under
surveillance . After the election he told the girls that he could tell how each
one voted . According to the testimony of these witnesses , Fesmiie was demoted
from the position of floor supervisor to countergirl for 1 day, the day of the
election . On that day she voted in the election and then was repromoted to
floor supervisor.
At one of the meetings Brebner read to the employees from a document which
he stated was a union contract for a store back East. By the terms of this con-
tract salesgirls were paid $33 a week, and employees in the culinary department
were paid 621/2 cents an hour. He pointed out to the girls that these rates of
pay were much lower than those that they were receiving and that they would
receive less pay after joining the Union. At various of the meetings he assured
the employees that the Company would give to the employees benefits as to
salary, vacations , and sick pay , equal in amount to any that might be obtained
through the Union.
On the morning of the election Brebner held a meeting of the employees from
the hour of 9 until 10: 10 a. in. The polls opened at 10: 30 a. m . At this pre-
election meeting Brebner restated all his arguments against the Union, including
the statements enumerated above.
Margaret Wullenweber testified that on July 6, 1951, the Friday before the
election, Brebner called her over to the fountain and asked her if she was a
union member. She did not reply to this, and then Brebner inquired if Mrs.
Lamb was the person who asked her to join . Wullenweber denied that Mrs.
Lamb either asked her to join the Union or was causing a lot of disturbance in
the store . Brebner then said that he was sorry , as he thought Wullenweber was
for the store . I credit this testimony of Wullenweber.
Betty Lewis testified that she joined the Union on the invitation of employee
Fesmire and Supervisor Blackley ; that about June 22, 1951 , she had a conver-
sation with Blackley , who was then personnel supervisor , who told her that
Brebner and she felt that Lewis was with them , and that they were giving Lewis
a $3 a week raise , because she deserved it.
Delma Ferguson testified credibly that about the middle of March she had a
conversation with Brebner in the office of the store . On this occasion, after he
had checked her order , he asked her to sit down and asked her why she was
unhappy. She said that she wasn't unhappy. Then Brebner told her "not to
fool around . She knew what he meant." She testified that she understood
Brebner to mean her union activities . He said he had been in the store long
enough to know the good girls, and those who were not so good, and he told
Ferguson that she had the intelligence and talent to go a long way in the store,
but that she would have to make up her mind which side of the fence she was
on, and he hoped that she wouldn 't make a mistake.
Upon the basis of the entire record, I find that the Respondent has violated
Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act by interfering with, restraining , and coercing its
employees by the following conduct of Store Manager H. C. Brebner :
(1) By interrogating the following employees about their union activities:
Margaret Wullenweber or on about July 6, 1951 ; Betty Lewis on or about June
20,1951; Delma Ferguson on or about March 5, 1951.
(2) By conducting meetings of the employees at which he told the , employees
that the Company would never sign a contract with the Union even if it became
1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the bargaining representative of the employees ; ` that employees would get lower
wages if the Union succeeded in organizing the store ; that in the event of a strike
he would prevent employees from securing employment elsewhere ; that he knew
which employees were union members and which ones attended union meetings ;
that he had union meetings watched ; e that employees did not need a union since
he would equal union conditions as to salary, vacations, and sick pay.
I find that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the allegation of the complaint
to the effect that Brebner promoted Fesmire because she withdrew from mem-
bership in the Union. The tenor of the relevant testimony seems to be that after
Brebner promoted Fesmire she told him that she was a member of the Union,
and disclosed her union activities to him. The testimony of Betty Lewis places
this disclosure to Brebner after the promotion of Fesmire. The testimony of the
other employee-witnesses is not clear on this point. In that posture of the proof
I find that the evidence is insufficient to sustain this particular allegation.
I also find that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by
the conduct of Supervisor Blackley who raised the pay of employee Betty Lewis
because she was "with them, and deserved it." Under the circumstances it
seems clear that the raise was Respondent's reward to Lewis for abandoning
union activities and that considerations of merit were entirely incidental.
I also find that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by
holding a meeting of employees on July 10, 1951, from the hours of 9 a. m. to
10: 10 a. in., when the polls in the Board-ordered election were to be opened at
10: 30 a. m. At this meeting Brebner made the statements related above, and
the Union had no equal opportunity to present its case.
In several recent cases' the Board laid down the rule that ".. . The right
of employees, guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, freely to select or reject
representation by a labor organization, necessarily encompasses the right to hear
both sides of the story under circumstances which reasonably approximate
equality . .. An employer who chooses to use his premises to assemble his
employees and speak against a union may not deny that union's reasonable re-
quest for the same opportunity to present its case where the circumstances are
such that only by granting such request will the employees have a reasonable
opportunity to hear both sides." In the Bonwit Teller case the Board found
that by denying the union's request for an opportunity to reply to a speech by the
employer to employees in its store the employer violated Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act and interfered with the free choice of employees in a Board-ordered
election.
In the present case, the Respondent scheduled the meeting for the hour im-
mediately preceding the election. This conduct made it impossible for the Union
to present its side of the issue. This scheduling, therefore, operated as a denial
of equal opportunity to the Union, and was of itself an unfair labor practice.
D. The objections to the election
Upon the entire record, I make the following findings as to the objections to
the election :
Objection 1. 1 find that there is no credible evidence supporting the allegation
that the Respondent engaged in surveillance of the employees' attendance at
union meetings. Though Brebner made the statement that he had the meetings
a Squirrel Brand Company, Inc., 96 NLRB 179.
6 Knickerbocker Plastic Co ., 96 NLRB 586
Bonwit Teller, Inc., 96 NLRB 608; Biltmore Manufacturing Company, 97 NLRB 184;
Bernardine Bottle Cap Company, 97 NLRB 1559.
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 1471
watched, there is no proof of surveillance other than that statement. While
that statement was highly coercive, and has been found to be coercive above, I
find it insufficient to establish that the Respondent actually engaged in sur-
veillance.'
Objection 2. The evidence sustains this objection. Brebner told the employees
that he knew who were members of the Union at various meetings of the em-
ployees, particularly those on or about March 24-29, May 10, and July 10, 1951.
Objection 3. I find that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the objection
that the Respondent threatened to discharge employees who were discovered to
be union members.
Objection 4. I find that this objection is sustained by the evidence. I find
that Store Manager Brebner interrogated employees in regard to their union
membership on or about June 20, March 5, and July 6, 1951, as found above.
Objection 5. I find the evidence insufficient to sustain this objection, order-
ing supervisory employees to ascertain the names of union members. The
principal evidence supporting this objection is that of Mrs. Lamb. I have previ-
ously rejected her testimony on this point.
Objections 6 and 7. I find that these objections have been sustained by the
evidence. On July 10, 1951, the address of Store Manager Brebner was to the
effect that the employees could expect a loss of wages, if they elected the Union,
and that the Company was ready to give them all the benefits which they might
attain by union membership, if they rejected the Union. Under the circum-
stances this speech was clearly coercive, and interfered with the employees'
free choice of a representative.
In addition to these specific findings on certain objections, it is clear that
the conduct of Respondent's supervisors, Brebner, Lamb, and Blackley, made a
fair election impossible.
Perhaps the union organizational campaign was launched without any help
from Respondent's supervisors, but certain it is, that soon after it began they
took an immediate and important part in the campaign. There is evidence in
this record that Lamb and Blackley both engaged in union activities. Blackley
appears to have switched her allegiance back to the Company, somewhere in the
course of the campaign, but Lamb persevered in her important role in the Union.
Thereafter the Company's disciplinary actions directed against Lamb, and the
switch of Blackley's allegiance, were factors which had substantial coercive
effect upon the employees. Once Lamb and Blackley were identified with the
Union, there was no practical way to restrain their improper conduct without
coercing the employees. When the Company took corrective action in the case
of Lamb, or when Blackley switched her allegiance back to the Company, that
conduct had a coercive effect on the employees, who identified the supervisors
with the Union. At the same time Store Manager Brebner was actively and
unlawfully opposing the Union. The entire atmosphere surrounding the organi-
zational campaign was such that the employees had no chance to make up their
minds without being influenced by either the supervisors who advocated the
Union, or played both sides, or the store manager who was active for the Com-
pany. The greatest activity in connection with this organizational campaign
was evidenced by Respondent's supervisors rather than by Respondent's em-
ployees. This conduct of the supervisors, on both sides, and in the middle of
the controversy, made a fair election impossible. The Respondent must accept
the responsibility for this situation, for these supervisors were the duly author-
ized representatives of the Respondent, and it was the Respondent's duty to
8John 8 Barnes Corp . v. N. L. R. B., 190 F. 2d 127 (C. A. 7).
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
insure that they did not interfere in the employees ' choice of a representative.
In this case , the supervisors interfered by activities, both for and against the
Union. In this maze of interference the employees had no chance to choose a
representative freely and fairly. Here the employees were pulled back and forth
between the opposing supervisory forces.
In its brief the Respondent argues that the Union has waived the objections,
found above, by its failure to protest before the election. The Respondent
points out that the organizational campaign began in March and continued until
July 10, 1951, the date of the election, and that the acts now stated as objections
to election, were known to the Union for a long time prior to the election. The
Respondent argues that it has been a long-established rule of the Board that
where a petitioner in a representation case with full knowledge of the facts,
alleged to constitute conduct affecting results of an election, does not protest
before the election by asking that the latter be postponed or by filing unfair labor
practices, such objections to the election will be deemed waived. The Respond-
ent cites many cases in support of this contention!
I cannot agree that the theory of waiver applies in this case. It seems to me
that the fact of paramount importance here is that the employees have been
deprived of their right to a fair and free election, by the conduct of Respondent's
supervisors in both aiding the Union, and in aiding the unlawful activities of
Respondent. The responsibility for this unlawful conduct must be borne by
both the Company and the Union ; by the Company, because the individuals
were supervisors and thus agents of the Company, and by the Union because
it admitted to membership some of Respondent's supervisors, and accepted the
services and help of these supervisors in organizing Respondent's employees.
Both the Company and the Union took advantage of the supervisory prestige
of certain individuals to further their own particular interests. To that extent
both were wrongdoers, interfering through the medium of the supervisors. At
this point, one wrongdoer should not be allowed to say that the election should not
be set aside because the other wrongdoer did not make a timely protest. To
entertain such an argument is to disregard entirely the rights of the employees
who, up to date, have not had the opportunity for a free, untrammeled election.
In my opinion this case is similar to the case of The M. H. Davidson Company,
94 NLRB 142. In rejecting the waiver argument in that case, the Board said.
"Here the unfair labor practice which vitiated the election did not occur after
a genuine question of representation had arisen, but was the very refusal to
bargain which induced both the Union and the Board to conclude, albeit errone-
ously, that such a question had arisen, and which induced the filing of the peti-
tion. In such a situation the Board's statutory obligation to prevent refusals to
bargain, and to enforce the public policy enunciated by the Act is paramount.
The Board cannot permit a possible waiver by a pmivate party to ove)rule this
policy." In this case the Board's statutory obligation to afford to the employees
a free, untrammeled election certainly overrides any possible waiver by the Union.
Furthermore, the unfair labor practices which are the basis of the a'nion's
objections occurred during all the time of the union campaign, up until a few
minutes before the election of July 10, 1951. Under those circumstances, I find
that the theory of waiver does not apply." Furthermore, the conduct of Re-
spondent in demoting Supervisor Fesmire for 1 day, so that she could vote in the
° Denton Sleeping Garment Mi118, Inc, 93 NLRB 329; Vetter Mfa Co, 94 NLRB No 163 :
Cherry and Webb Co., 94 NLRB 780; R. L. Polk d Co, 93 NLRB No 196 ; Harry C Lytton
and Company, 93 NLRB No. 49
'0 See Squirrel Brand Co , Inc , 96 NLRB 179.
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. 1473
election, was highly prejudicial to a fair election. Fesmire, according to all
the witnesses, had abandoned union affiliation and informed the Respondent as
to the identity of the union members. She was one of the focal persons in this
organizational campaign. Therefore her participation in the election, as an
employee, pursuant to her temporary demotion, certainly must have had a
coercive, interfering affect on the remainder of the employees. Fesmire's par-
ticipation must have had an effect out of all proportion to her own single vote.
This conduct of the Respondent is an additional reason for setting aside the
election.
I find, therefore, on the basis of the objections found above, that the election
of July 10, 1951, should be set aside and declared a nullity. I will recommend
the same hereafter.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action which will effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees (1) by interrogating its employees as to their membership
in the Union ; (2) by conducting meetings of the employees at which the Re-
spondent's manager told the employees that (a) the Company would never sign
a contract with the Union even if the employees elected the Union as their bar-
gaining representative, (b) that in the event of a strike Respondent would
prevent employees from securing employment elsewhere in Long Beach, Cali-
fornia, (c) that union meetings were watched, and that Respondent's manager
knew which employees were union members and attended union meetings; (3)
by threatening the employees with economic reprisal in the event they elected
the Union as their bargaining representative, and promising the employees
benefits in the event they rejected the Union; (4) by raising the pay of em-
ployees who refrained from assisting the Union; and (5) by conducting a
meeting of employees prior to a Board election, at such hours as denied the
Union an equal opportunity to discuss the issues of the election.
It will, therefore, be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from
such activities and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
The Respondent's infractions of the Act, herein found, disclose a fixed purpose
to defeat self-organization and its objectives. Because of the Respondent's un-
lawful conduct and its underlying purposes, I am persuaded that the unfair
labor practices found are related to the other unfair labor practices proscribed
by the Act and that the danger of their commission in the future is to be antici-
pated from the course of the Respondent's conduct in the past. The preventive
purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the remedial order is coextensive with
the threat. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees
of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and to minimize
1474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus to effectuate the policies
of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act.
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. Retail Clerks Union, Local 324 of Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent's unfair labor practices interfered with the free choice
of the employees' bargaining representative in the election conducted on
July 10, 1951.
5. The Respondent has not violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees as to their union affiliation,
activities, or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with economic reprisal in the event
they join or assist RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 324 OF RETAIL CLERKS INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, or any other labor organization ; or promise
our employees benefits for refraining from assisting or joining the above-
named labor organization, or any other.
WE WILL NOT raise the pay of employees to reward them for refraining
from assisting the above-named union.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by telling them
that: (a) We will not sign a contract with the above-named union, even if it
is chosen as a bargaining representative of our employees; (b) in the event
our employees strike, we will make it impossible for them to obtain employ-
nient elsewhere in Long Beach, California ; (c) we will keep the meetings
of the above-named union under surveillance and know which of our
employees are members of the union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to join or assist
RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 324 OF RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION, AFL, or any other labor organization to bargain collectively with
representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
REPUBLIC COTTON MILLS 1475
refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of any labor organiza-
tion or to refrain from so doing, except to the extent that this right may be
affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended
Act. We will not discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
Dated --------------------
F. W. WOOLWORTH Co.,
Employer.
By ---------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
REPUBLIC COTTON MILLS (DIVISION OF J. P. STEVENS COMPANY, INC.)
and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO . Case No. 11-CA-
512 (formerly 10-CA-1°267). December 29, 1952
Decision and Order
On August 28, 1952, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his
Intermediate Report, a copy of which is attached hereto, in the
above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Republic Cot-
ton Mills (Division of J. P. Stevens Company, Inc.) has not engaged
and is not engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint,
and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Thereafter, the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members
Murdock and Peterson].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the Union's exceptions, and the entire record in the case.
We hereby adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed in its entirety.
101 NLRB No. 233.
242305-53 --94