Grant City

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 13, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 622 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
W. T. Grant Company , d/b/a Grant City and Vera
Grace Davis . Case 8-CA-7841
May 13, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On February 5, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Lowell Goerlich issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions2 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
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, W. T. Grant
Company, d/b/a Grant City, Salem, Ohio, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
2 We hereby correct the following inadvertent error in the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision in the second paragraph of Sec . III A, change
1974" to " 1973 "
24, 1973, because the Respondent believed she had joined,
assisted, favored, or became a member of a union and/or
because she had engaged in other concerted activity for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, and thereby the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
herein referred to as the Act.
The Respondent filed a timely answer denying that it
had engaged in or was engaging in any of the unfair labor
practices alleged.
The case came on for trial at Salem , Ohio, on December
3, 1973. Each party was afforded a full opportunity to be
heard, to call, examine , and cross-examine witnesses, to
argue orally on the record, to submit proposed findings of
fact and conclusions, and to file briefs. All briefs have been
carefully considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT,' CONCLUSIONS, AND REASONS
THEREFOR
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is now , and has been at all times material
herein , a corporation duly organized under and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware , with its
principal offices located in New York City.
Respondent is engaged in the retail sale of general
merchandise and the operation of department stores
throughout the United States , and operates a retail store
located at 2352 E. State Street, Salem, Ohio, the only retail
store of Respondent involved in this proceeding.
Annually, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
retail operations , receives gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 and annually receives at its Salem , Ohio, store,
directly from points located outside the State of Ohio,
goods valued in excess of $50,000.
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Clerks International Association, Local No. 698,
AFL-CIO , hereafter referred to as the Union , is now, and
has been at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge: The
charge filed by Vera Grace Davis, an individual , on August
20, 1973, was served by registered mail on W. T. Grant
Company, d/b/a Grant City, the Respondent herein, on
August 22, 1973. A complaint and notice of hearing was
issued on October 30, 1973. The complaint charged that
the Respondent discharged Vera Grace Davis on February
i The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole and the
observations of the witnesses
2 The credibility resolutions herein have been derived from a review of
the entire testimonial record and exhibits , with due regard for the logic of
probability, the demeanor of the witnesses , and the teachings of N L.R B v
Walton Manufacturing Company & Loganville Pants Co, 369 U.S. 404, 408
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 2
A. Pertinent Facts
Grant City, W. T. Grant's store 1149, opened in Salem,
Ohio, on October 2, 1972. The Union commenced
organizing the store in September 1972 prior to the store's
opening and continued its organizational activities until
February 1973. Union representatives campaigned by
visiting the store about twice a week and conversing with
(1962) As to those witnesses testifying in contradiction to the findings
herein , their testimony has been discredited , either as having been in
conflict with the testimony of credible witnesses or because it is in and of
itself incredulous and unworthy of belief. All testimony has been reviewed
and weighed in the light of the entire record.
210 NLRB No. 102
W. T. GRANT COMPANY 623
the employees. Union representatives also solicited em-
ployees at their homes. Among the employees solicited was
the alleged discriminatee, Vera Grace Davis, who signed a
union authorization card on November 15, 1972. Davis
had commenced work for the Respondent on September
18, 1972.
Of the Respondent's employees, Davis engaged in the
most union soliciting. She also attended a union meeting in
January 1974, and by telephone invited other employees to
attend union meetings. At various times union representa-
tives conversed with her in the store.
On one particular occasion in December 1972, Betty
Jackson, personnel manager, while Union Organizer Helen
Bittinger was paying for a purchase at Davis' register,
approached the register and listened to the conversation of
Davis and Bittinger. On another occasion, Davis' father-in-
law, who was wearing union buttons on his hat, visited
with her in the store. Store Manager John E. Jonosik
watched them "the whole time."
A store rule required that all employees check their
purses at the office during working hours and carry no
money on their persons. On one occasion in January 1973,
Davis checked her purse which at the time contained union
authorization cards. When she retrieved the purse, the
union cards were missing.
Store Manager Jonosik said that he learned of the union
organizational campaign some time in November or early
December 1973. Thereafter he discussed the Union at
separate meetings with section managers 3 and employees.4
Jonosik told section managers that the "Union had been
trying to get into the store" and that the managers were to
"watch" the union representatives when they came into the
store and "find out who they talked to." The union
representatives were identified by Personnel Manager
Betty Jackson. Thereafter, union representatives were
"watched" by the section managers and reports were made
to Jonosik.5 One time Jonosik asked Union Organizer
Helen Bittinger to leave the store premises. Section
managers were also told by Jonosik to inquire of the
employees what their feelings were toward the Union .6
Contacts were made with the employees and reports were
given to Jonosik.7
Specifically Jonosik instructed Section Manager Virginia
Hull to "stay with Vera Davis." Around February 16, 1973,
Jonosik observed some "women talking to her." Jonosik
asked Hull about the incident, at which time Hull told him
that she had found out that Davis had signed a union card.
Jonosik informed the section managers that the store's
3 The General Counsel contends that the section managers are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act in the determination of the issues
in the case, it is deemed immaterial whether the section managers were
supervisors within the meaning of the Act and no decision is made thereon
4 Jonosik testified, "I told them that I recognized the fact that they have
the right to organize, but I wanted to make sure that they also had the right
not to organize This was the most important point that I tried to make at
those meetings " Jonosik also encouraged employees to ask questions
5 Section Manager Louise Grande testified credibly that the section
managers "were to go up to the Union person and treat them like a
customer and tell our employees to go about doing something else"
6 Section Manager Grande testified credibly, "We were to go to them
[the employees] and ask them how they felt about the Union one way or the
other, whether they wanted to join or whether they would rather have a
Union or not."
7 Jonosik testified, "I asked the section managers to he sure that the
"biggest problem" was "the Union people because he
called them troublemakers." 8 Jonosik said that "there were
ways to get rid of girls that had Union cards or belonged to
the Union." 9
At the employee meetings, Jonosik informed the employ-
ees that there should be no employee soliciting on store
time, that, if employees wanted to pay into the Union, "he
could take $5 off" them ; 10 that he couldn 't see why the
employees needed a union ; that the Union was stupid; that
he didn't want the Union in the store and he could not see
that the Union would improve anything . At one meeting,
he said that he could identify the employees who had
signed union cards.
About 2 or 3 weeks before she was discharged and after
an employee meeting at which the Union was discussed,
Davis met, at her request, with Jonosik in order to ask him
why she was being watched. Davis informed Jonosik that
she had signed a card and that she "wondered if this was
the problem as to why everybody was watching" her.
Jonosik replied that he was "pretty sure" Davis had signed
a card because a couple of girls had told him that she had
called them in reference to a union meeting . During the
conversation, Jonosik asked Davis what she thought a
union could do for her . She answered, ". . . better job
relationships, better job qualifications and you are not
shoved all over the place, plus he couldn't meet you at the
door and say, `You are fired.' " it
The Respondent maintained a rule that required employ-
ees who purchased store merchandise during working
hours to check the purchases in the office (purses were
checked at the same location). The first and third copy of
the receipt for an employee 's purchase were stapled to the
register tape and put in the register . The second copy was
stapled on the bag. If an employee purchased an item as
she was leaving work she could check it through the
register on the way out of the store without checking it at
the office. The rule also provided that all packages would
be checked at the exit door.12 No packages were to be
placed under the counter or locked in lockers . Davis had
knowledge of these procedures.
Many of the employees had violated the rule by placing
merchandise which they particularly wanted under the
counter. Jonosik looked upon such procedure with disfa-
vor.
After lunch on February 24, 1973, Davis was temporarily
assigned to the candy department. Here one box of candy
remained of certain reduced sale items . Desiring to take
advantage of the reduced price, Davis placed the box,
Union organizers were not to monopolize time.
8 Jonosik was asked whether he had stated that he knew who the
troublemakers were He answered , "No I had a lot of people guessing. But
I didn't know "
9 Hull and Grande as well as Davis are credited witnesses.
10 Jonosik testified , " I tried to make the point that they [the employees]
didn't have to pay for it. that it was already provided for them."
11 Jonosik admitted a conversation with Davis. Jonosik testified that
Davis said that "she hoped that [he] didn 't think she was a troublemaker."
He also "discussed the position that she was in" and said that he "really had
no problems with her work "
i2 Employees were allowed to get their purses during luncheon or dinner
breaks and at breaktimes These were the only times when employees were
permitted to purchase items and check them in the office during working
hours
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
together with another box of candy, in a bag, wrote her
name on it, and placed it under the counter. Later some
employee remarked that "if you have anything under the
counter, get it out." (Employees had been previously
informed not to follow this practice.) Davis removed the
sack and placed it beside her register in the stationery
department where she had returned. After one incident of
a customer knocking the contents from the sack and
another incident of a person attempting to purchase the
boxes of candy, Davis stapled the sack closed, affixing a
blank register tape to the sack. The sack lay by the register
for several hours in plain view. At quitting time, Davis said
to the cashiers, whom she was then helping bag, that she
was checking out and would see them "in a couple of
minutes ." She picked up the sack and proceeded toward
the lounge . Before reaching the lounge, she deposited the
sack at the office window counter and asked for her purse.
She proceeded to the lounge. Returning with her coat and
boots, she picked up her purse and the sack and with a $10
bill and her car keys in her hands proceeded toward the
front of the store to pay for the candy at the cash register.
Jonosik appeared; he said, "Vera, can I see the slip on
that?" She answered, "I don't have it. I am on my way to
pay for it now." She added, "I [don't] have anything to
hide other than the fact that I . . . put it in the sack earlier
than I should... " Jonosik replied, "As of today you no
longer have a job." Davis asked, "Why?" Jonosik replied,
"Just say you didn't follow store procedures."
Davis replied, "You mean putting it in a bag? You will
then have to fire other employees." Jonosik responded,
"we're just talking about you." 13
Sometime in May, prior to the filing of the charge in this
case , Jonosik discharged employee Deborah Phillis for a
similar offense . It had been reported to Jonosik that Phillis
had been observed taking merchandise to the lounge.
Jonosik was shown the merchandise and thereafter
"watched it all day." When he saw Phillis leave, Jonosik
went into the lounge and found the merchandise missing.
He then accosted Phillis at the front door. After examina-
tion of the merchandise, Jonosik dismissed Phillis.
Jonosik testified that the specific part of the package
procedures which Davis violated was the "package check
procedure and taking of the merchandise into the employ-
ees' lounge . . . . The fact that she bypassed the normal
package check procedures." Again he testified, "The fact in
question was that she was in the employee lounge with a
package and she wasn't supposed to be there. It was sealed
and it had a total tape on it. There was no reason that this
total should be attached to that package." 14 Jonosik
13 Jonosik's version of the incident was as follows- He saw someone
proceeding to the lounge with a package in her hand. As Davis returned, he
saw the package she was carrying with a register tape not normally used for
employees' purchases stapled to it. He immediately inquired of the office
girl whether Davis had given her any packages Upon receiving a negative
reply (Davis had not checked the package but had laid it on the office
window counter.) he then stopped Davis in the fashion department and
asked to see the purchase . Jonosik looked in the bag, whereupon Davis
asked him what he was accusing her of She also said she had made
arrangements with the girl at the front checkout Jonosik testified, "So I
looked in the bag and saw there was candy inside I went up and asked the
girl if Mrs. Davis would see her shortly before she left . She indicated 'no.'
.. I told her that because she had violated package procedures she no
continued, "The thing that concerned me and upset me
was the fact that I saw the wrong tape on there."
Jonosik testified further that employee packages are
checked by a checkout supervisor or an assistant as the
employee leaves the store. Such person takes a portion of
the receipt which is attached to the bag and matches it
"with the register for the purpose of her figuring the
amount and purchases." 15
According to Jonosik, this is a security measure which
"protects the employee from being accused and us so we
may have that information." At the time Davis was
accosted by Jonosik, Davis, according to Jonosik, would
have had to have passed "through the registers in order to
go out the Out door," the direction she was heading. At the
time, Davis was about 10 feet from the register and about
25 feet from the door.
B. Conclusions and Reasons Therefor
While the Respondent admits that "the Company had
knowledge that the Union attempted to organize the store
shortly after it opened in October 1972 and even held store
meetings concerning this organizing attempt in December
1972 and January 1973," it contends that the Respondent
"had no knowledge of Davis' Union activity at the time of
his [sic] discharge." The Respondent hangs this conclusion
on the claim that Davis lied when she testified that she had
revealed her union connections to Jonosik and that Section
Manager Hull lied when she testified that she had told
Jonosik that Davis had signed a union card. Having
weighed the demeanor of Davis, Hull, Jonosik,16 and other
witnesses, having given due consideration to the affidavits
of Davis and Hull, and in the light of the record as a whole,
it is found that Jonosik had knowledge of Davis' union
affection. These additional factors support this finding: (1)
In the light of the Respondent's surveillance of union
representatives in its store and of its employees, it is highly
unlikely that Jonosik would not have learned of Davis'
union partisanship, especially since Davis engaged in more
union solicitation than any other employee; (2) union
authorization cards were missing from Davis' purse after it
had been checked at the Respondent's office; (3) Davis
was "watched" by Jonosik when she talked to her father-
in-law whose hat was adorned with union buttons; (4)
Jonosik instructed Section Manager Hull to "stay with
Vera Davis"; and (5) Jonosik told the employees at a
meeting that he could identify the employees who had
signed union cards.
In respect to Davis' discharge, the Respondent asserts
that it was "for violating the package check procedure and
taking of the merchandise into the employees' lounge."
longer had ajob with me." It is of significance that neither the office girl nor
the girl who indicated "no" was called by the Respondent for testimony.
i4 Jonosik defined a total tape , "These register tapes are used to help us
balance out the registers ." It was different from a slip attached to a
customer's bag "in that the [customer 's] tape would have been an exact
duplicate of the merchandise that was in the bag."
is Jonosik testified , "And the copy that they take from the bag is mashed
[sic i in the bag the following morning to make sure that the packages are
definitely being checked out properly "
16 The fact that Jonosik experienced two union organizational cam-
paigns while an employee of the Respondent and during these campaigns
was not the subject of unfair labor practice charges has been considered in
judging the credibility of Jonosik
W. T. GRANT COMPANY tip
The General Counsel claims pretext. The charge that Davis
took merchandise into the employees' lounge is not
supported by the credible evidence in this case. The
credible facts are that Davis laid the package on the office
window counter and then proceeded to the lounge to
obtain her coat and boots. Moreover, neither in the
testimony of Davis nor in the testimony of Jonosik 17 does
it appear that Jonosik informed Davis that she was being
discharged specifically for taking a package into the
lounge. Indeed, Jonosik testified that the "thing that
concerned me and upset me was the fact that I saw the
wrong tape on there." Obviously Jonosik was not con-
cerned at the time about Davis' alleged taking of the
package into the lounge because in reality he did not see
such alleged occurrence. Apparently his concern in this
respect matured as an afterthought in order to augment the
weak reason which he seized upon for Davis' discharge. It
was a weak reason indeed because no other employee had
been discharged for violating package procedures, al-
though there had been known infractions, and because,
based on Jonosik's knowledge of the incident, 18 there is a
serious question as to whether the rule had been violated
by Davis.
In discharging Davis, Jonosik relied upon certain written
rules , items 4, 10, and 12. Item 4 provides:
Make all personal purchases according to the store
rules , check your package in the office as instructed.
These must all be approved and checked out at the exit
door at closing time.
Item 10 provides:
All employee packages are to be turned into the
office for safe-keeping until employee leaves the store.
Item 12 provides:
All employees' packages must be checked through
the office. All packages will be checked at exit door
before employees leave. No packages can be locked in
lockers or under counter.
It is clear that the rule does not ban purchases as the
employees leave the store for the day or require that such
purchases be checked through the office Indeed, the
practice was that employees were allowed to purchase
merchandise on their departure from the store Moreover,
the rule does not mention whether such purchases must be
placed in unstapled sacks or sans a total register slip
attached thereto. Moreover, had Jonosik suspected theft,
he was presumptuous, for Davis was heading toward the
cash register with a $10 bill in her hand.19 He depraved
Davis of the opportunity to prove her innocence by halting
her before she had reached the cash registers. His haste in
apprehending her is suggestive of his ulterior motive, of
which, when measured against the discharge of employee
Phillis, there can be little doubt. When Jonosik was
informed that Phillis had placed packages in the lounge, he
watched the packages and Phillis until her quitting time,
but did not approach and discharge her until she was
17 Jonosik testified, "I had told her because she had violated package
procedures she no longer had ajob with me "
18 Jonosik's knowledge was limited to Davis' carrying a package toward
the front of the store stapled with a total cash register tape attached to it. On
the tape, Jonosik said there appeared $24,000 or $25,000. Jonostk as a
knowledgeable person must have known that this figure and the tape did
not reveal that at that time the merchandise had been purchased . Jonostk
proceeding out of the front door of the store beyond the
cash register where payment was required. Had Jonosik
behaved toward Phillis as he did toward Davis he would
have fired Phillis before she reached the cash registers.
Indeed, had he been inclined to enforce the alleged rule
against taking packages into the lounge, he would have
fired Phillis when he discovered the packages in the lounge.
His treatment of Phillis vis-a-vis Davis is the more
significant because at the time Jonosik did not know that
Davis would lodge unfair labor practice charges against the
Respondent. Jonosik's failure to await the chance for
substantiating evidence against Davis, as he did for Phillis,
discloses the pretextuous nature of Davis' discharge.
Moreover, if the treatment of Phillis was normal employer
practice, then the treatment of Davis was a variance.
Other factors support this same conclusion. Jonosik, by
his institution of surveillance of employees and his
statements to employees and the section managers, reveals
union bias which the discharge of Davis, a known union
partisan, would have gratified. "When a . . . manager
holding . . . antiunion bias . . . is involved directly in the
decision whether to discharge an employee, the Board is
entitled to conclude that this was a case of the threat made
good." N.L.R.B. v. Neuhoff Bros. Packers, Inc., 375 F.2d
372, 376 (C.A. 5, 1967).
As noted above, one of the reasons claimed for Davis'
discharge was false. "[P]roof . . . that the reason given [for
a termination] was false warrants the inference that some
other reason was being concealed. . . . If the employer is
independently shown to have an antiunion animus which
the discharge would gratify, it may be a fair inference that
this was the true reason." N.LR.B. v. Joseph Ante!!, Inc.,
358 F.2d 880, 883 (C.A. 1, 1966). Indeed, the addition of a
reason not revealed to the employee at the time of
discharge smacks of pretext.
Credible evidence further indicates that Jonosik acted to
remove Davis from the payroll for discriminatory reasons
because not only did he threaten to get rid of the union
troublemakers, but he directed that Davis be watched and
reported on. Moreover, at the time of her discharge,
Jonosik gave no heed to any explanation for her alleged
misconduct. Cf. United States Rubber Company v.
N.L.R.B., 384 F.2d 660,662,663 (C.A. 5, 1967).
"[T ]he `real motive' of the employer in an alleged 8(aX3)
violation is decisive...." N.LR.B. v. Brown et a!., d/b/a
Brown Food Stores, et aL, 380 U.S. 278, 287 (1965). See also
Local 357, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America [Los Angeles-
Seattle Motor Express] v. N.LR.B., 365 U.S. 667, 675
(1961). Therefore, on the basis of the record as a whole, it
is concluded and found that the "real motive" for the
Respondent's discharge of Davis was to discourage
membership in a labor organization and to interfere with
the right of employees "to self-organization and to form,
join, or assist labor organizations."
must also have known that Davis could not have passed the package
through the exit with this type of tape attached to it if the checkout
supervisor was performing her job and that it would have been sheer folly
for Davis to have made the attempt.
19 While Jonostk testified that he did not see the $10 bill, he said, 'I
don't know what she had to her hand."
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"Illegal motive has been held supported by a combina-
tion of factors, such as `coincidence in union activity and
discharge' . . . `general bias or hostility toward the union'
... variance from the employer's `normal employment
routine' . . . and an implausible explanation by the
employer for its action . . . ." McGraw-Edison Company v.
N.LR.B., 419 F.2d 67, 75 (C.A. 8, 1969). All these factors
are present in the instant case.
It is well established that the existence of even a proper
reason for discharge is no defense if the discharge was
actually made as here for an improper purpose. The John
Klann Moving and Trucking Co., 411 F.2d 261, 263 (C.A. 6,
1969).
Accordingly, it is found that by the discharge of Vera
Grace Davis on February 24, 1973, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act for jurisdiction to be
exercised herein.
3. By unlawfully discharging Vera Grace Davis on
February 24, 1973, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE RECOMMENDED REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices , it is recommended that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It
having been found that the Respondent unlawfully
discharged Vera Grace Davis and thereby violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, it is recommended that the
Respondent remedy such unlawful conduct. It is recom-
mended in accordance with Board policy20 that the
Respondent offer Vera Grace Davis immediate and full
reinstatement to her former position or, if such position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and
make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against her by
payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount she
would have earned from the date of her discriminatory
discharge to the date of an offer of reinstatement , less net
earnings during said period, to be computed on a quarterly
basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and including interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum in the manner set forth
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Accordingly, upon the basis of the foregoing findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this
proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is
recommended that the Board issue the following:
ORDER 21
Respondent W. T. Grant Company, d/b/a Grant City,
Salem , Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from Discouraging membership in
Retail Clerks International Association, Local No. 698,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by unlawfully
discriminatorily discharging any of its employees or
discriminating in any other manner with respect to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
em?]ployment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
lake the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Vera Grace Davis immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former position or, if such position no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position , without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make her whole for any loss of pay that she may have
suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination
against her in accordance with the recommendations set
forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Recommended Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its Salem, Ohio, store copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 22 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8,
after being duly signed by Respondent's representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
20 See The Rushton Company, 158 NLRB 1730, 1740.
21 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , 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
22 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all parties were permitted to
introduce testimony and other evidence , it has been
decided that we violated the National Labor Relations Act,
W. T. GRANT COMPANY
as amended, by discharging Vera Grace Davis in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Vera Grace Davis her job or, if her
job no longer exists , a substantially equivalent job.
WE WILL restore her seniority and pay her the
backpay she lost because we discharged her.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discharge any of our
employees for the same reason we discharged employee
Vera Grace Davis.
W. T. GRANT COMPANY,
D/B/A GRANT CITY
(Employer)
Dated By
627
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Suite
1695, Anthony J. Celebrezze Federal Building, 1240 East
Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, Telephone
216-522-3715.