J. C. Penney Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1279 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

J. C. PENNEY CO., INC. (STORE #1814) 1279
J. C. Penney Co., Inc . (Store #1814) and Local 725,
Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO. Case 25-CA-2934
July 24, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On April 2, 1968, Trial Examiner John F. Funke
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of
the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
In rejecting store manager White's testimony as
to when the decision to terminate Owens was made,
the Trial Examiner characterized his conclusion
that his rejection of White's testimony very well
might amount to substituting suspicion for proof.
We do not agree. Critical to the Respondent's
defense is the credibility of White's testimony that
the decision to terminate Owens was made on
Friday, September 8, 1967, prior to Owens union
activity of which patently White could not have had
any knowledge if his testimony with respect to the
decision to terminate is accepted. White's
testimony, however, while not contradicted, is sub-
ject to the test of corroborating evidence or the
lack thereof particularly where, as here, cor-
roborating evidence apparently should have been
available. If, as White testified, he instructed the of-
fice manager to make out the termination papers
on Friday morning, why did not the Respondent
have the office manager testify on this point? In our
opinion, the absence of such a witness or the failure
to explain such absence weighs heavily in favor of
the General Counsel's case.' In addition to this, the
testimony of Hardesty, the Respondent's area
operations and control manager, supports White's
testimony as to a conversation regarding Owens' at-
titude on the 7th, but again, fails zo corroborate
White's critical testimony that in this conversation
they discussed terminating Owens. Finally, we be-
lieve that if in fact White did decide to terminate
Owens on Thursday evening or Friday morning and
directed the papers be prepared as of Friday morn-
ing, this information would have been commu-
nicated in some way to Wolfe, the supervisor most
directly concerned with these events. A careful
review of the record fails to show that Wolfe was at
any time apprised of this decision, and yet Wolfe
testified that he had talked with Smalley on the 9th
about Owens' union activity.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent, J. C.
Penney Co., Inc. (Store #1814), Indianapolis, Indi-
ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order; as so modified.
1. Add the following as paragraph 1(c):
"(c) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise
of their rights of self-organization, or to form, join,
or assist the Union, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
engaging in any or all such activities."
2. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), the
present paragraph 2(b) and those subsequent
thereto being consecutively relettered:
"(b) Notify the above-named employee, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of her right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Ser-
' As a discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(3) goes to the very heart of
the Act, we shall modify the Recommended Order to include a broad
cease-and-desist order
2 Wigmore , Evidence 285, (3d ed.) See also N L R.B. v Homedale
Tractor & Equipment Company, 211 F 2d 309, 315 (C.A. 9, 1954)
n Smalley's testimony shows that he was allegedly aware of the decision
to discharge early on the 8th, and yet, neither Smalley nor White offered
any explanation as to why Wolfe was not in some way involved in the deci-
sion or given knowledge thereof even though Wolfe apparently expected
Owens to report for work on Monday, September I I
172 NLRB No. 134
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vice Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act , as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces."
3. Add the following after the third substantive
paragraph of the Appendix "Notice to All Em-
ployees: "
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, or
to form , join , or assist the Union , or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection , or to refrain from engaging
in any or all of such activities.
4. Add the following immediately below the
signature line at the bottom of the Appendix at-
tached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision:
NOTE : We will notify the above -named em-
ployee , if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States, of her right to full reinstate-
ment , upon application , in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner : Upon a charge
filed September 28, 1967, by Local 725, Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, herein
the Union, against J. C. Penney Co., Inc., herein
Penney or the Respondent , the General Counsel is-
sued complaint alleging Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in surveillance
of the union activity of its employees and violated
Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the Act by discharging
Katherine L. Owens. The answer of Respondent de-
nied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
This proceeding , with all parties represented, was
heard before me at Indianapolis , Indiana, on Janu-
ary 22 and 23, 1968. At the conclusion of the hear-
ing the parties were given leave to file briefs and
briefs were received from the General Counsel and
Respondent by March 6, 1968.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses while testifying, I make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged
in the operation of retail chain stores in many of
the States. It maintains a store at Indianapolis, Indi-
ana, known as the Southern Plaza store ( Store #
1814) which is the only store involved in this
proceeding . During a representative 12-month
period sales of merchandise at Store #1814 ex-
ceeded $500,000. During the same period Store #
1814 received merchandise valued in excess of
$50,000 which was transported to said store from
States other than the States of Indiana . Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. The discharge of Owens
Katherine Owens was employed as a stock clerk
at Respondent 's Southern Plaza store from March
1962 until she was discharged on September 11,
1967.She worked in the stockroom where she per-
formed the usual duties of a stockroom clerk.
Respondent contends Owens was a supervisor, a
contention with which I do not agree . It is true that
from June or July of 1966 , during the illness and ul-
timate death of Stock Department Manager Mayer
and until the employment of Leo Roger Wolfe on
October 1 , 1966, the stockroom was without a su-
pervisor and Owens acted as supervisor . Following
the employment of Wolfe she resumed her regular
duties. It is true that she recommended applicants
for employment who were subsequently hired but it
is a routine procedure for employees in retail and
other small industries to recommend friends or
acquaintances for employment when vacancies oc-
cur.' Wolfe himself testified that when employees
told him that if Owens did not like them they
"would be gone" he told them this was not true. He
also testified that when Owens, who was con-
cededly a senior employee , protested certain
changes in the working arrangements that "we went
ahead and made the changes ." Perhaps more con-
clusive is the fact that there were only two , three or
four girls working in Owens' division of the
stockroom ( it was divided into ladies ' and men's
apparel ) and about seven in the entire room.
Neither the nature of the functions nor the size of
the complement required two supervisors. Owens
was designated as a stock clerk on Respondent's
personnel records of 1967.1
During the course of her employment Owens
received the following pay increases:
' Wolfe stated he inquired of everyone in the stockroom when help was
needed
'GC Exh 3
J. C. PENNEY CO., INC. (STORE #1814) 1281
From To
Date (Hourly Rate ) (Hourly Rate)
March 1962 Began $1.10
April 1963 $1.10 1.16
Nov. 1 1, 1963 1.16 1.21
May 18, 1964 1.21 1.30
Nov. 16, 1964 1.30 1.37
June 21, 1965 1.37 1.45
Oct. 18, 1965 1.45 1.52
Jan. 3, 1966 1.52 1.56
Aug. 22, 1966 1.56 1.70
May 22, 1967 1.70 1.85 (at time of
discharge)
On July 17, 1967, Owens went on sick leave.
While on leave she had conversations with both
Wolfe and Store Manager White. She testified that
while on leave she learned that she was being trans-
ferred to other work in her department and that on
August 23 she called Wolfe, who told her he had a
good job for her on the "chase machine" and she
replied that two other girls had turned it down.
Wolfe then told her it was all he had for her. Owens
then went to the store and after some conversation
she agreed to stay at Southern Plaza and work the
chase machine. She later wrote White to that ef-
fect. (G.C. Exh. 4.)
On September 5 Owens saw her doctor who told
her she could go back to work. On the 7th she
called White who told her to report for work on
September 11. On September 11 Owens reported
for work shortly before 8 o'clock and left her medi-
cal certificate on White's desk. A few minutes later
she saw White who took her into his office and told
her he thought it best for all concerned if they
severed relations. She asked if she was fired and
when White said she was, told him that was all right
with her. This was the first she knew that the
Respondent had contemplated firing her. Her ter-
mination check had been made out and was given
to her at the time.
2. Union activity and company knowledge
Katherine Owens and her daughter, Janet Mil-
ligan, signed authorization cards on behalf of the
Union on September 4. (G.C.Exhs. 8 and 9.) On
September 7 she asked another employee, Lola An-
drews, if she would sign a card and gave her one.
This conversation took place outside the store. On
the same day she talked to employees Dorothy
Titus and Margaret Beeman at lunch-they lunched
at Woolworth's- talked to them about the Union,
and gave them the Union's book "It Pays to Be-
long." (G.C. Exh. 6.)
Larry Malson, head of the shoe department and a
witness for the Respondent, testified that he had
dinner with Wolfe on September 8 and that Wolfe
told him that Owens was trying to organize a union
in the store. He advised Wolfe to tell White. The
next day, Saturday, September 9, Malson had
luncheon with Ronald Metcalfe and told him what
he had heard from Wolfe. Metcalfe testified that
after the luncheon he tried to call White but White
was not at the store so he reported the conversation
to Ronald Smalley, assistant manager.3
Wolfe testified that he had dinner with Malson
on the evening of September 8, that he told Malson
that he had heard "something about the, about
union activity" and mentioned Owens. Wolfe stated
he had heard of Owens' activity through a Mrs.
Deatheridge and that Friday afternoon was the first
he had learned of it. Wolfe did not report his
knowledge of the activity to White but did, on the
next day, Saturday, report it to Smalley. He also
testified that during the dinner conversation with
Malson, Malson did not indicate that he had any
knowledge of union activity in the store.
White, who made the decision to discharge
Owens, testified that the first knowledge he had of
Owens' union activity was acquired on Sunday,
September 10, and that he had heard no rumors of
any union activity prior to that time. On Sunday
White received a telephone call from Smalley in
which Smalley asked him if he knew Owens was at-
tempting to organize the store. Smalley informed
him that he had learned of it through Metcalfe on
Saturday and had attempted to reach him (White)
but had been unable to. White's response to Smal-
ley's question as to what he proposed to do was,
"I'll consider it."
3. Asserted reasons for the discharge of Owens
Respondent gives three reasons for the discharge
of Owens: poor productivity, poor attitude toward
her work, and tardiness.
As to productivity Kenneth Hardesty, group
operations and control manager for the five Indi-
anapolis stores, testified he visited the Southern
Plaza store about March 7, 1967, to check its
stockroom operations, which had the worst record
of the five stores.5 He made "extensive recommen-
dations and drew an outline of physical changes ...
to improve efficiency." On March 31 he returned
to the store and worked with Wolfe to effectuate
the changes. According to Hardesty, Owens ob-
jected to one of the changes because she would lose
her marking table.' Respondent introduced man-
` Smalley, in his testimony, corroborated Metcalfe as to the date of this
conversation The General Counsel offered in evidence the pretrial af-
fidavit of Smalley in which he stated the conversation took place on Sep-
tember 8 It was received without objection
White's testimony that he left Indianapolis about noon on Saturday for
Xenia, Ohio, and did not return until after 1 1 p in is uncontradicted and is
accepted
s Hardesty testified that stockroom productivity was running at $177 per
man-hour while an acceptable average was $250-300 White's testimony is
that Hardesty 's visits occurred in May, not March
6 White testified that Owens completely rejected the changes and that he
and Owens went down to "make some changes to revert it back the way it
was " Despite the lengthy testimony on the changes, the only direct
testimony is that two tables were moved and that one of them was returned
at the request of Owens
1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hour figures to support its contention to show that
Owens was responsible for the poor production of
the stockroom . These figures, as testified to by
White, indicated production for 1967 as follows:
January 145.00
February 174.00
March 193.00
April 135.00
May 135.00
June 174.00
July 189.00
August 208.00
September 275.00
October 268.00
November 218.00
December 266.00
The figures do establish that following the month of
July when Owens went on sick leave there was a
significant increase in the man-hour production
record of the stockroom. The accuracy of the
figures was not susceptible to attack by the General
Counsel, being peculiarly within the knowledge of
Respondent. Respondent also introduced into
evidence an appraisal of performance report for
Owens, dated May 24, 1967, which indicated, on
the basis of White's explanatory testimony, that her
performance on most of the factors rated was per-
haps adequate but certainly not superior. (G.
C.Exh. 3.)
As to the allegation that Owens' attitude was un-
satisfactory the evidence is far from conclusive.
White testified that while Mayer was sick in August
of 1966 he spoke to Owens about productivity and
that she told him she was doing all she could and
could not "get these people to cooperate." White
further testified that on June 19, 1967, he prepared
a memorandum referring to Owens' continued fric-
tion with stockroom girls and discussed it with
Wolfe. No evidence of such friction was supplied in
the testimony of White. On August 15, while
Owens was on sick leave, White prepared another
memorandum to the effect that Owens had been
calling the girls in the stockroom and "Appears
upset because Deloris Wagers is doing the job Kate
was on. Possibly upset because merchandise is mov-
ing out on time with fewer markers." The informa-
tion on which this memorandum was based was
acquired from Wolfe.
Wolfe's testimony is that on one occasion Owens
refused to discuss the problem of her relations with
the other girls with him and told him she might not
be in the next day because she was not feeling well.
She was not in the next day. Another incident
testified to by Wolfe concerned relations between
Owens and an employee named Evelyn Johnson.
According to Wolfe, Owens told him to get John-
son off her back or she (Owens) would and that
this stemmed from complaints made by Johnson to
Wolfe related to Owens' late arrivals and her habit
of keeping her coat and purse downstairs
(presumably in the working area). This was ap-
parently against the rules and when Wolfe spoke to
the girls about this he stated that Owens resented it.
In addition there is testimony by White that both
Wagers and Johnson complained to him at some
time concerning their relations with Owens. It is
evident that there were incidents which arose from
time to time in which Owens and the other girls had
disagreements but it is impossible from the record
to indicate where the blame should be placed or to
indicate that the incidents were more than trivial. It
is inevitable that when women (or men) work
together in reasonably close proximity and in close-
ly related jobs differences will arise. I do not find
that the record here will sustain the charge that
Owens' attitude toward her work or her relations
with her fellow employees was sufficient grounds
for discharge.7
As to tardiness, Respondent offered the
testimony of White that Owens would arrive 15 to
20 minutes late at least once a week. This tardiness
apparently was a regular occurrence during the 5-
1/2 years of her employment and was never the
subject of reprimand. Offsetting this, if it needs off-
setting, is Owens' uncontradicted testimony that
she frequently worked overtime without compensa-
tion.
4. Alleged surveillance of union activity
The complaint alleged two instances of alleged
surveillance of union activity. The first, the so-
called parking lot incident, was dismissed by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and no appeal from
the dismissal was taken. As to the second the
testimony merely establishes that Phillip Smalley
followed Katherine Owens and Madonna Whiteford
about the store when they were shopping there
some time after Mrs. Owens' discharge and assisted
in making one sale to them. I find this testimony
totally insufficient to establish surveillance within
the meaning of the Act.
B. Conclusions
The resolution of the issue as to the discharge of
Owens, the only issue remaining in the case, pro-
vides the usual difficult problem where the asserted
reasons lead to no firm conclusion and the alleged
discrimination can be supported by no direct
evidence. I find none of the asserted reasons, either
productivity, attitude, nor tardiness convincing on
the basis of the testimony offered to substantiate
them. Particularly is this true in view of Owens'
length of service with Respondent, her pay in-
' Neither Wagers nor Johnson nor any other fellow employee was called
as a witness by Respondent
J. C. PENNEY CO., INC. (STORE #1814)
creases, and the minor degree of authority she was
given in the stockroom."
This, of course, does not answer the question at
issue. An employer needs to give no reason for
discharging an employee. The General Counsel
must prove that the reason was discriminatory
within the meaning of the Act. I think that the sole
issue presented in establishing that the discharge
was discriminatory was that of company knowledge
of Owens' discharge in relation to the date of the
decision to discharge. White's testimony, supported
by that of Smalley, is that White did not learn of
Owens' union activity until September 10. It is also
his testimony that the decision to discharge Owens
was made on September 7 following a conversation
with Wolfe respecting Owens on that date. This
conversation with Wolfe occurred after Owens had
talked with White and White had told her to report
to work on September 11. According to White,
Wolfe told him "He says our operation has
smoothed to the point where I don't see how I can
continue or make it work by taking her back into
the job." White agreed and decided to discharge
her. He denied any knowledge of union activity on
the part of Owens at this time.9
Nevertheless I believe the General Counsel has
sustained his burden of proof that the discharge of
Owens was in violation of the Act. The issue is cer-
tainly not free from doubt and any reviewing
authority might well reach a contrary conclusion. It
is, however, a fact that Owens had been a satisfac-
tory employee for more than 5 years, had received
pay increases during that period, and her responsi-
bilities had been increased. Management admit-
tedly knew of her union activity on September 8
and management had admittedly promised her on
September 7 that she could report back to work on
September 11. The difficulty is in determining
when White acquired knowledge of her union ac-
tivity and when he reached the decision to
discharge her. If White is credited he did not know
of her union activity at the time of decision. I am
not accepting this testimony and it may well be ar-
gued that this is substituting suspicion for proof.
The decision is based on the fact that the record
does not support the alleged reasons for discharge,
that at least one member of management knew of
her union activity on September 8, that she had
been promised her job back on September 7 and
that White, when allegedly informed of her union
activity on September 10 merely replied, "I will
consider it." If her discharge papers had already
been processed and had been for nondiscriminatory
reasons the reply has little meaning. I therefore find
that the discharge of Owens was in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
8 Consideration has been given to Wolfe's testimony concerning his
telephone conversation with Owens on August 23 in which he advised her
that certain changes would be made in the stockroom While Wolfe
testified that Owens was "pretty upset" I again find the testimony inconclu-
sive I found Wolfe a hesitant and evasive witness and , where his testimony
is contradictory with that of Owens, I credit Owens
IV. THE REMEDY
1283
Having found the Respondent engaged in and is
engaging a certain unfair labor practice it shall be
recommended that it cease and desist from the
same and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully
discharged Katherine Owens because of her union
or other concerted activity and in order to
discourage membership in a labor organization, I
shall recommend that Respondent offer her full and
immediate reinstatement to her former or substan-
tially equivalent position without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges and make
her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination practiced against
her. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with
the formulae set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
Because only a single violation of the Act has
been found and because the evidence to support
that violation is far from overwhelming the broad
cease-and-desist order usually recommended in
remedying violations of Section 8(a)(3) will not be
recommended herein.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in this case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Katherine Owens because of
her union or other concerted activity and in order
to discourage membership in or action on behalf of
Local 725, Retail Clerks, International Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an un-
fair labor practice affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is hereby recommended that J. C. Penney Co.,
Inc. (Store #1814), its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discriminating against any employee in re-
gard to his hire or other term or condition of em-
ployment to discourage membership in Local 725,
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO, by discharging him.
(b) Discharging any employee for engaging in
union or concerted activity for mutual aid and pro-
tection guaranteed to him by Section 7 of the Act.
9 The Trial Examiner permitted testimony of a polygraph test taken of
White on this issue The results of the test showed that White was telling
the truth when he denied knowledge of union activity on the part of Owens
when he made the decision to discharge her. The testimony has been evalu-
ated but has not been given controlling weight in determining the credibili-
ty of the witness
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Katherine Owens full and immediate
reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to her seniori-
ty or other rights and privileges and make her
whole for any loss of pay or other monetary loss she
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
practiced against her in the manner set forth in that
part of this Decision entitled "The 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
Order.
(c) Post at its terminal at Indianapolis, Indiana,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 25, after being
duly signed by the Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous 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 25,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith."
10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 25, in wnting, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee to
discourage membership in Local 725, Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO.
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee
because he has engaged in union activity or
other concerted activity protected by Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL offer Katherine Owens her job
back without loss of seniority or other rights or
privileges and we will pay her for any loss of
pay she may have suffered since we fired her.
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or to refran from becoming o remaining, members
of the above-named or any other labor organiza-
tion, except to the extent that such right might be
affected by a lawful union-security clause executed
between Respondent and a labor organization in
conformity with Section 8(a)(3) and Section 7 of
the Act.
J. C. PENNEY CO., INC.
(STORE #1814)
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions , they may
communicate directly with the Board' s Regional
Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone 633-8921.