Globe Shopping City

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 25, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 177 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

GLOBE SHOPPING CITY
Walgreen Co., d/b /a Globe Shopping City and Retail
Clerks Union , Local 1564, Chartered by Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO. Case
28-CA-2638
April 25, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On October 24, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
James T. Barker issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter , the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief , and the Respondent
filed cross-exceptions and an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings , findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its order the recommended or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed.
MEMBER FANNING , dissenting:
The Administrative Law Judge found that Respon-
dent violated Section 8 (a)(1) by Supervisors Adams'
and Christiano 's inquiries into the voting intentions of
employees Herrera and Arguello; by Adams' threat to
Herrera that she would lose hospital benefits if the
Union won ; and by Christiano's threat to Arguello
that merit increases would be abandoned and wage
increases postponed if the Union won. The Adminis-
trative Law Judge , City Howell Refining,' found a
remedial order was unnecessary and recommended
the complaint be dismissed because there was no evi-
dence Adams and Christiano acted in concert, the
violations were more in the nature of technical trans-
gressions and not highly coercive , and the violations
were directed to only 2 of the 122 employees.
Contrary to the Administrative Law Judge and the
majority , I believe a remedial order is required here.
The Administrative Law Judge's characterization of
177
threats involving loss of benefits as technical trans-
gressions is without precedent. Such threats, particu-
larly when made during a critical preelection period,2
have, until now, been considered by this Board to be
serious violations of Section 8(a)(1).
The Board's mandate is to remedy unfair labor
practices. The courts have held that when the Board
finds unfair labor practices it must provide a remedy
for them' The Act does not authorize the Board to
give a respondent two bites of the apple before it
applies its remedial powers. It is fundamental that to
protect the Section 7 rights of employees, the Board
must remedy unfair labor practices, and particularly
those which occur during a critical preelection period.
This Respondent purportedly schooled its supervi-
sors in the "do's and don'ts" of an organizational
campaign. In spite of this two of the three (at most
four-the record is not clear) supervisors engaged in
interrogations and made coercive threats to employ-
ees. However, the Administrative Law Judge in effect
finds that, because there is no evidence of concerted
antiunion activity or a preconceived campaign by the
supervisors involved, the Respondent is somehow re-
lieved of responsibility for the violations. That finding
is irrelevant; proof of concerted antiunion activity by
supervisors is not a condition precedent to or an el-
ement of an 8(a)(1) finding.
The Administrative Law Judge found Respondent
committed what I consider to be serious unfair labor
practices. Pursuant to the mandate of the Act, I would
remedy these violations.
1 Howell Refining Company, 163 NLRB 18.
2 See Leonard Refineries, Inc., 147 NLRB 488.
i See U A W (Omni Spectra, Inc) v. N. L. R. B , 427 F.2d 1330 (C.A. 6), and
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO [Wagner Industrial Products] v.
N L R.B, 386 F.2d 981 (C.A.D.C.).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. BARKER. Administrative Law Judge: This matter
was heard at Albuquerque. New Mexico, on August 24,
1972, ' pursuant to a charge filed on May 30, by Retail
Clerks Union, Local 1564, chartered by Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Un-
ion. On July 6, the Acting Regional Director of the National
Labor Relations Board for Region 28 issued a complaint
and notice of hearing alleging violations of Section 8(a)(l)
of the National Labor Relations Act, hereinafter called the
Act. On October 4, the Respondent timely filed a brief with
me.
Upon consideration of the brief of the Respondent, and
upon the entire record in this case and my observation of
the witnesses, I make the following:
1 All dates refer to the calendar year 1972
203 NLRB No. 36
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
At all times material herein, Respondent has been an
Illinois corporation maintaining its principal office and
place of business at Chicago, Illinois. Respondent also
maintains other places of business located in approximately
35 States of the United States, including the State of New
Mexico and in Puerto Rico, where it has been at all times
material herein engaged in the business of retail merchan-
dising of clothing, appliances, and other products.
During the 12-month period immediately preceding the
issuance of the complaint herein, Respondent, in the course
and conduct of its business operations, sold merchandise,
appliances, and other products, which had a gross value in
excess of $500,000. During the same period of time, Respon-
dent, in the course and conduct of its business operations,
purchased, transferred, and caused to be delivered to its
place of business located in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
merchandise and appliances valued in excess of $50,000
directly from States of the United States other than the State
of New Mexico.
Upon these facts, I find that Respondent has been at all
times material herein an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Clerks Union, Local 1564, chartered by Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating and
threatening employees and by giving employees the impres-
sion that their union or concerted activities were being kept
under surveillance.2
B. Pertinent Facts
1. Background facts
a. The Company's operations
At material times , Respondent has operated a retail es-
tablishment located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, known
as Globe Shopping City. During the same period of time,
Respondent has also maintained an operation in El Paso,
Texas. Only the Albuquerque facility is involved in this
proceeding.
George Hoak is the general manager of the Albuquerque
store. Thomas Adams is the manager of the cafeteria oper-
2 At the hearing allegations of the complaint relating to alleged unlawful
conduct on the part of two purported supervisors were dismissed on motion
of Respondent made at the conclusion of the General Counsel's case
ated on the store premises known as the Sun Room. Charles
Christiano is soft lines manager.
b. The organizing campaign
On April 25, the Respondent and the Union entered into
a stipulation for certification upon consent election. An
organizing campaign had been commenced during the first
week of March under the direction of Robert Donaldson.
During the course of the organizational effort which contin-
ued until approximately June 9, Donaldson was assisted by
other union organizers. During the period of time in ques-
tion , from one to six representatives of the Union visited
Respondent 's store daily and occasionally in the evening
except on holidays and weekends.
In the first week of March, Donaldson began to contact
employees in the store. He would speak to the employees in
the cafeteria at breaktime and on lunch hours. His weekday
visits would last from 5 minutes to approximately 1 hour.
During the course of the organizing campaign, the Union
mailed campaign literature to approximately 25 or 30 of the
appoximately 122 employees comprising the unit. Included
in the literature mailed to employees were advisories con-
cerning the right of employees to organize and to be repre-
sented by a union; to have their choice of a bargaining
representative determined by a secret-ballot election con-
ducted by the Board; and to be free from management
threats concerning loss of jobs and benefits. Literature was
distributed by the Union informing employees of a meeting
to be held for the purpose of answering questions and in-
forming employees of their Fights under Federal statutes.
Employees were invited to consult with representatives of
the Union by telephone and in person for the purpose of
receiving an explanation of the Union's program and they
were informed by a circular dated May 26 that, "Our Union
has a policy of negotiating upward from what you have
now. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose." The
same circular also contained the following statement:
We are prepared to show you and discuss with you the
Real Gulf Mart contract, also what the Gulf Mart's
employees are negotiating in their contract.
c. Company instructs supervision
In the meantime, during the first week of March, several
employees informed George Hoak that they had been ap-
proached by the Union concerning union representation.
As a consequence, Hoak informed his superiors and a repre-
sentative from the Chicago office of the Respondent came
to Albuquerque on March 15. A meeting was held which
was attended by Hoak and Thomas Adams. During the
course of the meeting a booklet entitled, "Some Do's and
Don'ts For Supervisors" was distributed and was discussed
verbatim. The booklet contained instructions concerning
permissible and impermissible supervisory conduct toward
employees during organizing campaigns.
Subsequent meetings were held on April 11, April 26,
May 15, and June 1, which were attended by George Hoak,
3 The booklet specified as proscribed conduct interrogation , threats, and
surveillance of the character attributed by the General Counsel to the Re-
spondent herein
GLOBE SHOPPING CITY
Thomas Adams , and Charles Christiano . At the April 26
meeting, attended by Hoak , Adams , and Christiano, the
booklet was again discussed and stress was placed upon the
"do's and don'ts" contained therein . The contents of this
booklet were again stressed by Hoak during the course of
subsequent meetings attended by Adams and Christiano.
On the morning of June 6 , Respondent hand delivered to
daytime store personnel copies of a document which pur-
ported to represent the position of management and super-
vision with respect to certain allegedly inaccurate rumors
which were said to be circulating relating to ( 1) the risk of
job loss on the part of employees who supported the Union;
(2) loss of fringe benefits if the Union should win the elec-
tion ; and (3) interrogation on the part of the Company as
to how employees intended to vote.
In response to these asserted rumors the following was set
forth:
FACT
This is a typical union "scare tactic'. The Company
respects your legal right to vote in favor of the Union
and nobody has to worry about losing their job so long
as they continue to do a decent day's work . Remember,
however, that you also have a legal right to tell the
Union that you want nothing to do with them by "NO"
next Tuesday.
If the Union wins the election , these matters become
subject to negotiations. As a result of such negotiations,
you could end up with more , the same or less in the area
of fringe benefits.
The Company is talking to people in an attempt to
acquaint them with the real issues involved in the up-
coming election . The Company has no right to ask
anyone how they intend to vote and , furthermore, the
Company does not want to know how anyone intends
to vote . The Company does want to feel that your deci-
sion next Tuesday will be based upon knowledge of
both sides of the question of whether it is in your best
interest to hire the Retail Clerks Union.
At approximately 11:30 a.m. on June 6, Respondent re-
ceived notice of the cancellation of the election . Thereafter,
circulation of the June 6 document was ceased.
2. The alleged unlawful conduct
a. Herrera and Adams converse
During the month of May , Charlotte Herrera conversed
with Adams in the cafeteria . The conversation was a brief
one initiated by Adams who commented that the union
election was forthcoming and that Herrera would probably
receive "a lot of literature" from the Union concerning the
Union's policy . Herrera indicated that she did not believe
that she had received any literature because she had moved
and mail was not being forwarded to her.
Later the same day , the subject of the Union arose and
Adams asked Herrera how she was going to vote. Herrera
answered that she was uncertain about the entire matter but
that in any event she was not going to vote . Adams asked
179
Herrera if she knew how unions "worked" and Herrera
answered in the negative . Thereupon , Adams asked Herrera
if she would do him , herself , and the Company a "favor"
and vote "no ." Adams further stated that if the Union came
in Herrera would "probably" lose her compensation for loss
of work due to illness and "maybe" lose her hospitalization
coverage .4 Adams did not elaborate.5
b. Arguello and Christiano converse
At approximately 9 a.m. on May 2 , David Arguello spoke
with Christiano in the domestic department. Christiano
called Arguello over and asked him how he was going to
vote . Arguello responded that this was confidential . Christi-
ano remarked that if the Union came in there probably
wouldn't be any raises for a period of a year or 18 months
and that any raises that would be granted would probably
only "be a dime ." Raul Thompson-a management train-
ee-was present and he asked Christiano if the Company
would grant merit raises . Christiano answered that he didn't
know but that the Company would probably take those
away also .6 Thereupon , Arguello asked how the Company
could take something away from employees that the em-
ployees didn't have . Christian did not respond to this and
the conversation ended on this note.
Approximately a week later Arguello and Christiano
again conversed and wages in the receiving department
were the topic of the discussion . During the course of the
conversation, Christian stated that the employees at the
Albuquerque dock would receive the same wages as the
employees on the dock at the El Paso store received . Christi-
ano did not make any comparison concerning the respective
wage scales.
Arguello testified that at the time of the conversations in
question he was aware that wages and merit raises were
Prior to the conversation with Adams , Herrera had been hospitalized due
to an on-the-job injury and had received workmen 's compensation.
5 The foregoing is based on an evaluation of the testimony of Charlotte
Herrera and Thomas Adams . Herrera impressed me as a truthful witness who
endeavored to accurately recount the events concerning which she was ques-
tioned . The findings are based principally upon her testimony and I credit
the testimony of Adams only to the extent it is consistent therewith.
In evaluating Herrera 's testimony , I find no basis for concluding that she
was influenced to testify as she did because a short time earlier she had been
admonished by George Hoak, the store manager , for a violation of company
policy. The incident was a pallid one and I am not convinced it colored her
witness-chair testimony.
I have also considered the fact that Adams had received instructions
relating to permissible preelection conduct toward employees on the subject
of union representation . I find no basis for concluding that in speaking with
Herrera, Adams was seeking to be intentionally vengeful . Rather, I am
convinced he spoke in an honest effort to convince Herrera to his point of
view and not with intentional disregard of instructions that had been given
him.
With respect to references made by Adams to possible loss of benefits in
the event of a union victory, I rely on Herrera 's testimony on cross-examina-
tion and not on her direct examination testimony which infers that Adams
asserted a union victory would perforce lead to a loss of compensation and
hospitalization benefits On the other hand , I do not credit Adams ' denial of
an' mention of a possible loss of benefits.
The transcript at one point incorrectly records Arguello as testifying that
Christiano informed him merit raises would probably be granted . This is at
variance with its record context and the trial notes of the Administrative Law
Judge No motion to correct the record has been filed , but the context is
sufficiently clear to obviate the need for formal correction.
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
subject to negotiation between the Company and the Union
and understood , as a consequence , that the wage scale and
merit raises were "negotiable." 7
c. Constande speaks with Christiano
On May 16, Christiano informed Albert Constande in the
presence of Arguello that he had a copy of the Gulf Mart
collective-bargaining agreement. Christiano asserted that if
they wanted to see the contract he would bring it "down."
Constande said that he would like to see the contract. Dur-
ing the course of the conversation, Christiano stated that the
employees in the receiving department would get the same
wages as the employees on the El Paso docks. Christiano did
not thereafter show the Gulf Mart contract to Constande.
The following day, Christiano approached Constande on
the work floor and in a mock gesture of physical combat
took Constande by the arm feigning an arm lock. With a
smile on his face, Christiano said to Constande , "I am not
telling you how to vote, but.... " Christiano slapped Con-
stande on the shoulder as he made this comment. Con-
stande testified he took the remark seriously.8
d. Christiano converses with Luther Lucero
On the evening of May 17, as Luther Lucero was ap-
proaching the timeclock to punch out, Christiano asked
Lucero if he wanted to see the Gulf Mart contract. Lucero
stated that he was "late to punch out" but Christiano said,
"We have got time." Lucero stayed on the clock and he and
Christiano went to the office of George Hoak where they
spoke together.9 Christiano presented Lucero with a copy of
the contract and Lucero glanced at portions of the agree-
ment . He read the clauses relating to vacation benefits.
Christiano asserted that he was showing Lucero the Gulf
Mart contract to permit him to assess the benefits received
by employees at a unionized store as compared with, those
at a nonunion store . Christiano stated that the Gulf Mart
employees had received two or three 10-cent raises a year
since 1969. Christiano asked Lucero how much vacation he
was getting and Lucero answered he was receiving 3 weeks'
vacation. Christiano noted that at the Albuquerque store
the employees received 3 weeks' vacation after 5 years of
employment. He declared that this was superior to the va-
cation benefits received under the Gulf Mart contract. He
7 The foregoing is based primarily on the credited testimony of David
Arguello. I have considered the testimony of Charles Christiano concerning
this conversation and credit it only to the extent that it is consistent with the
foregoing . Christiano did not deny asking Arguello how he was going to vote.
Rather, Chnstiano merely denied asking Arguello "directly" concerning his
voting intentions . As against Christiano's testimony on this topic I credit
Arguello.
On the other hand , I credit Christiano 's testimony , which in the ultimate
is supported by that of Arguello, to the effect that he did not inform Arguello
that employees were "going to get more money like El Paso." Inferences to
this effect in Arguello's direct testimony are not credited.
8 The foregoing is based on the testimony of Albert Constande and Charles
Christiano which in salient aspects is mutually corroborative.
9 As a time prior to the conversation in question , Lucero had informed
Lillie Apodaca, Respondent's information girl, of his desire to see the Gulf
Mart contract.
added that if the Union should come in the Company
"might negotiate for less than three weeks" vacation.10
e. The transfer issue
On June 1, 1972, the Company posted the following no-
tice in its Albuquerque store:
NOTICE TO GLOVE EMPLOYEES
MANY OF YOU HAVE ASKED MR ADAMS AND MYSELF ABOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF TRANSFERRING TO THE NEW STORE WHICH IS
SCHEDULED TO OPEN LATE THIS FALL ALL THAT I CAN TELL YOU
AT THIS TIME IS THAT ALL REQUESTS FOR TRANSFERS WILL BE
GIVEN CONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS OF PERSONNEL NEEDS OF
BOTH STORES
G. HOAK
Mary Lucero testified that on May 4 at precisely 2:30
p.m. Charles Christiano spoke to her in the girl's depart-
ment. According to Lucero, Christiano observed that the
election was going to be held on June 13. He further stated,
according to Lucero, that if the "store goes union, the ones
who want to get a transfer to the new store won't be able
to." Mary Lucero testified that she had not requested a
transfer and that, in substance, the comment attributed to
Christiano was not prompted by anything she had said con-
cerning the subject.
Mary Lucero further testified that approximately 2 weeks
later while she was departing from the infant stockroom she
heard Christiano say to Jo Ann Geist, an employee, "Hey,
Jo Ann, how about the union, what do you think of it?"
According to Mary Lucero, she was approximately 2 feet
away from Chnstiano when she heard this comment.
Christiano denies the comments attributed to him by
Mary Lucero. He further testified that he had never re-
ceived a request from Mary Lucero to be transferred to the
new store and had never discussed the matter with her.
Christiano's testimony with respect to the alleged conversa-
tion with Mary Lucero and the alleged comment to Jo Ann
Geist impressed me as truthful and reliable. On the other
hand, Mary Lucero impressed me as a witness prone to
rationalize her testimony and her objectivity may have been
affected by certain minor disciplinary actions which had
been visited upon her by supervision prior to her appear-
ance as a witness at the instant hearing. In all substantial
respects, I credit the testimony of Christiano over that of
Lucero.
10 The foregoing is based on the testimony of Luther Lucero and Charles
Christiano I do not credit Christiano's denial of the statements attributed to
him by Lucero concerning the effects of a union victory upon employee
benefits, nor his assertion that his statements concerning benefits were limit-
ed merely to a comment that these matters would be "negotiable " As noted,
Christiano testified that it was his intention in showing Lucero the Gulf Mart
contract to compare vacation benefits at Gulf Mart with those received at
the Albuquerque store. I find it likely that, in the manner testified by Lucero,
Christiano would endeavor during this conversation to point up the compari-
son in a manner most beneficial to the Company . On the other hand, I do
not credit those portions of Lucero's testimony which would suggest that
during the course of the conversation with Christiano , Christiano specified
in detail the vacation benefits provided under the Gulf Mart contract. Rath-
er, as found above, I am convinced that Christiano merely pointed out that
they were inferior to those received by Lucero and permitted Lucero's read-
ing of the contractual provisions to support his point in this regard.
GLOBE SHOPPING CITY 181
Conclusions
Upon the foregoing, I find that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by virtue of the inquiries of Adams
and Christiano into the voting intentions of employees
Charlotte Herrera and David Arguello, respectively. These
inquiries constituted interrogation proscribed by the Act.
Moreover, Christiano's allusion to possible loss of hospital
and compensation benefits in the event of a successful un-
ionization effort, made in context of a request to Herrera to
vote "no" in the pending election , constituted an impermis-
sible threat laced with the inference that reprisals in the
form of a loss of existing benefits would accompany the
choice of a union to represent employees . In the same cate-
gory of proscribed conduct is the more explicit threat ut-
tered by Christiano to Arguello to the effect that merit raises
would be temporarily abandoned and wage increases would
be postponed , as well as their amount diminished, in the
event of a union victory in the election. Nothing in
Christiano's remarks to Arguello premised these latter even-
tualities upon bargaining table occurrences or progress.
In contrast to the foregoing, however, I find that the
record fails to support the other allegations of the com-
plaint. Thus, contrary to the General Counsel, I discern no
violation of the Act deriving from the comments of Christi-
ano to Arguello, Constande, or Luther Lucero concerning
the intention of the Company to maintain parity as between
El Paso and Albuquerque wages. Nothing in Christano's
comments implied a retributive attitude on the part of the
Respondent or an unwillingness to negotiate concerning
wages. Nor do I find that Respondent engaged in pros-
cribed conduct in showing the Gulf Mart contract to em-
ployees and comparing its provisions with those presently in
effect in Albuqueruqe. The evidence does not reveal that the
contract discussions were accompanied by unlawful threats
or promises, expressed or implied, and the Union itself had
interjected the Gulf Mart agreement into the preelection
discussions . Section 8 (c) grants to an employer the right, in
a manner and setting free from coercion , to compare bene-
fits presently in effect in his unorganized operation with
those enjoyed by employees in a similar operation which has
union representation . Nothing in the instant record relating
to the display and discussion of the Gulf Mart agreement
suggests that Christiano engaged in misrepresentation,
threats , or promises relating to existing or prospective bene-
fits or terms of employment.
Nor do I find a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in
Christiano's jocular comment to Constande on the subject
of voting . The utterance in question came in the course of
"horseplay" and "kidding around," so characterized by
Constande himself. Despite his characterization of the inci-
dent, Constande was ambivalent in his testimony concern-
ing the impact of Christiano's utterances upon him. As
above found, Constande was not subjected to improper
supervisory inquiry or coercion, and I am convinced that
Christian's jocular remark was innocuous and not rea-
sonably susceptible of serious interpretation by Con-
stande.I I
Finally , upon the record as a whole , including the fre-
quent and open visits of union representative to the store
where they met and spoke with employees on store prem-
ises, I find insufficient basis for concluding the comments
and/or actions of supervision were such as to lead employ-
ees to believe surveillance was being maintained over their
union activities . Nothing of substance suggests that the off-
premises union activities of employees were subjected to
comment, inquiry, or reproach by any supervisor. Adams'
observation to Herrera concerning receipt of union litera-
ture is too insignificant , in light of this record , to convey an
impression of surveillance , as that term is used in the par-
lance of the Act.
The question remains whether , as contended by the Re-
spondent , no remedial order is justified herein, in light of
the relatively small number of employees in the employee
complement of approximately 122, who were directly sub-
jected to supervisory interrogation and threats . I am per-
suaded as to the merits of Respondent's contention.
While the Board has noted that the restraining effect of
coercive conduct is not limited to employees directly in-
volved,12 and that employer preelection interrogation and
threats are likely to receive prompt and wide circulation,13
nonetheless , where the instances of unlawful Section 8(a)(1)
conduct are few , are directed to a small segment of the
employee complement , and the conduct is not part of a
coordinated employer effort to deprive employees of a free
choice in their selection of or resort to a bargaining repre-
sentative , the Board has examined the context and circum-
stances in which the conduct has occurred in determining
whether a remedial order should issue . 14 In the instant case,
although the violative conduct occurred at a time when a
Board election was pending , there is no basis for a finding
that either supervisor, Adams or Christiano, acted in con-
cert, one with the other , or in fulfillment of a preconceived
campaign to undermine the Union. Their actions, although
violative of the Act, were more in the nature of technical
transgressions and were not of an aggravated or highly coer-
cive nature. They were directed to merely 2 employees in a
relatively large unit of approximately 122 and transpired
against a backdrop of assurances by the Company that all
employees were free to vote their own persuasions in the
election . This case closely parallels in principle the Board's
decision in Howell Refining Company, supra, and upon ap-
plication of that precedent, and in consideration of the cir-
cumstances above delineated , I am of the opinion that the
purposes of the Act would not be served by the issuance of
a remedial order . 15 Accordingly , the complaint is dismissed
Hotel, Inc., d/b/a/ Riverside Hotel, 166 NLRB 426, 433; Phillips-Van Heusen
Cor 165 NLRB I. 11
International Manufacturing Company, Inc., 167 NLRB 769, 770.
13 International Manufacturing Company, Inc., supra; Stayer's Johnsonville
Meats, Inc, 174 NLRB 693, In. 3; cf. N.L.R.B. v. McCormick Steel Co.,
Division of Ducommon Metals & Supply Co., 381 F.2d 88 (C.A. 5).
14 Howell Refining Company, 163 NLRB 18; Tracon, Inc., 184 NLRB 147;
International Paper Company, Long-Bell Division, 184 NLRB 351; Lever
Brothers Company, 163 NLRB 194; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 166
NLRB 553
15 Cf Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, supra.
Without merit is Respondent's contention that no remedial order is jus-
tified because of the asserted b f t l fa sence o any ac ua coercive impact oii See Sarkes Tarzian, Inc, 157 NLRB 1193, 1197-98, G C Murphy Com- Respondent's conduct towards its employees due to the alleged sophistica-
171 Npany, LRB 310, enfd 422 F 2d 685 (C.A DC. ), cf Reno's Riverside tion of the employees concerning their election rights and the bargainability
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in its entirety. Act, I hereby issue the following iecommended:16
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the ORDER
of wages and benefits. N L R B. v Wylie Manufacturing Company, 417 F 2d
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
192 (C.A. 10); N L R B v. Ford Brothers, 170 F 2d 735 (C.A. 6); Time-O- 16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Magic, Inc. v . N.L.R B, 264 F .2d 96 (C.A. 7), School-Timer Frocks, The, 110 Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Board . the findings , conclu-
NLRB 1659. sions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102 .48 of the
Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings,
conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived
for all purposes.