Morris, Sewall & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 1067 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

MORRIS, SEWALL & CO., INC. 1067
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent set forth in section 1, above, have
a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the findings herein that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices defined in Section 8 ( a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act, it will be recommended
that Respondent be required to cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action
appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act. I find that it would be appropriate
to effectuate the policies of the Act to require Respondent to offer reinstatement and
backpay to the five employees discriminatorily discharged in September 1961-
Vanderiest, Tolhurst, Emery, Workman , and Chorman-by paying to each of them
sums of money equal to those which each would normally have earned from the
date of discrimination to the date of Respondent 's offer of reinstatement or rein-
statement as the case may be , less net earnings during the intervening period. The
backpay provided herein shall be computed in accordance with the formula set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.10
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7 ) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to tenure of employment with respect to Genevieve
Vanderiest, Beatrice Tolhurst, Oneida Emery , Rose Workman , and Jean Chorman,
thereby discouraging participation in concerted activities and on behalf of a labor
organization and engagement in the rights of employees as defined in Section 7 of
the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication I
10 The General Counsel has requested that interest be added to the payments There
do not appear to be circumstances here warranting the grant of his request See Slfera
Candy Company, 92 NLRB 1220
Morris, Sewall & Co., Inc. and Retail Clerks Union Local No.
455, AFL-CIO, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 23-CA-1808. September 27, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 13, 1962, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Interme-
diate Report. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in other unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the
complaint as to them. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
138 NLRB No. 118.
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report and the entire record in the case, including the excep-
tions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order I of the
Trial Examiner.
'The backpay obligations of the Respondent shall Include the payment of interest at
the rate of 6 percent to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co, 138 NLRB 716. For the reasons set forth in the dissent in Isis Plumbing & Heat-
ing Co. , supra, Member Leedom would not grant 6 percent interest on backpay, and does
not approve the award herein
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, in which the charge was filed and the complaint was issued on
September 29 and November 16, 1961, respectively, involves allegations that the
Respondent, Morris, Sewall & Co., Inc., violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 73 Stat. 519. On January
30 and 31, 1962, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt conducted a hearing at Houston,
Texas, at which all parties were represented. The Respondent's motions to dismiss
the complaint are disposed of in accordance with the determinations below. Upon
the entire record, and from my observations of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a Texas corporation, is a wholesale and retail grocer with a
chain of retail stores in and near Houston. During a 12-month period preceding
issuance of the complaint, the Respondent purchased grocery products and other
goods valued in excess of $1,000,000 which were shipped to it directly from points
outside Texas. There is no dispute, and I find that the Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNION
Retail Clerks Union Local No. 455, AFL-CIO, Retail Clerks International Asso-
ciation, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization which admits to membership employees
of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
Two allegations of the complaint were stricken at the hearing and I now grant
a posthearing motion by the General Counsel to strike paragraph numbered 6(e)
The remaining issues are whether, during the summer of 1961, the Respondent
(a) solicited employees to hand over union authorization cards to the Respondent,
(b) interrogated and threatened employees concerning union or concerted activities,
and (c) transferred an employee, Edward Cloud, to a less desirable position and, 2
days later, discharged Cloud because of his union or concerted activities
MORRIS, SEWALL & CO., INC. 1069
B. The Respondent's request of employees that union cards be delivered to it
Charles Goodwin, the assistant manager of the retail store at which organiza-
tional activities occurred, spoke to employees about handing union cards over to
him. The cards had been given to employees by organizers who visited the store.
The General Counsel asserts, while the Respondent denies, that Goodwin was a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. It is unnecessary to resolve that issue
because, whatever Goodwin's supervisory duties may have been, his conversations
with employees concerning union cards resulted from a direction to him by an
admitted supervisor, Bill Grimes, the store manager. Grimes told Goodwin to ask
employees to give the cards to Goodwin if they did not wish to retain them. The
purpose, so Grimes and Goodwin testified, was to assure that the employees would
not drop unwanted cards on the floor and thereby give the store an untidy appear-
ance. According to Grimes and Goodwin, some cards had been discarded in that
way. Goodwin went among the employees on two occasions and asked them to give
him cards which they did not intend to use. Grimes made a like request of employee
Joseph Alford, who answered that he already had given the card to Goodwin. The
record does not disclose the number of cards which Goodwin thus received from
among the store's approximately 25 employees, but he testified that some employees
"even" gave cards to him without any inquiry or request on his part. I find that the
requests by Grimes and Goodwin of employees were violative of Section 8(a)(1).
This is so because the requests were calculated (1) to bring about the disclosure
to the Respondent of the identities of employees who, by not giving their cards to
Goodwin, indicated their wish to sign the cards and deliver them to the Union, and
(2) to deter union-minded employees from delivering signed cards to the Union.
The Respondent's desire to keep union cards off the floor could have been accom-
plished by asking employees to discard unwanted cards in the receptacles in which
they placed the various waste materials of the store, and there is no reason to
conclude that the employees, if so requested, would have been any more careless
in disposing of the cards than in disposing of the other materials.
C. Interrogation and threats
The complaint alleges that Grimes interrogated and threatened employees con-
cerning union or concerted activities. The alleged interrogation involves the occasion
mentioned above when Alford told Grimes that he already had given his card to
Goodwin. Grimes had inquired of Alford whether he had a card. That question
constitutes the alleged interrogation. Having found that the conversation consti-
tuted a violation of Section 8 (a)( 1 ), it is unnecessary to discuss whether a portion
of the conversation constituted an additional violation.
The alleged threat involves an occasion when Goodwin began work in the store
and was introduced to the employees as the new assistant manager. According to
Cloud, a witness for the General Counsel, Grimes said to the employees that working
conditions would "really be rough" if the Union should become their representative,
that he knew that some of them had participated in having a letter written to the
Respondent in which complaints had been made about working conditions, and
that if he should learn their identities they would be discharged.' On the other hand,
Goodwin, also a witness for the General Counsel, did not testify concerning the
incident, and Alford, another witness for the General Counsel, testified that he
could not recall any meeting at which Grimes spoke of the Union. Grimes denied
that he made the threats and, while he was an unreliable witness for reasons appear-
ing hereinafter, none of the score or more of employees was called to corroborate
Cloud's testimony. Moreover, while the General Counsel contended at the end
of his case that the particular allegation of the complaint was based upon Grimes'
alleged remarks to the group of employees, in his brief he drops the contention. I
conclude that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden.
D. The discharge of Cloud
Cloud went to work for the Respondent on July 3, 1961, at its South Park store
in Houston. He handled incoming goods, kept shelves stocked with merchandise,
and worked at a checkout counter. On August 5, a Saturday, he was assigned
1 The testimony is that Grimes also said that employees who paused in their work in
order to talk with union representatives in the store would be discharged The General
Counsel does not contend that this alleged threat was violative of the Act
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
against his wishes to work in a store in Deer Park, Texas, on the outskirts of
Pasadena, about 16 miles from the South Park store. On August 7 he was dis-
charged. The transfer and the discharge are both alleged to have been in violation
of the Act.
On July 20, 1961, at the start of the Union's organizational activities, Cloud
signed an authorization card. He asked employees to attend union meetings and
spoke to them of expected advantages from organizing. Coincident with the be-
ginning of union activities, Jerry Beasley, with whom Cloud shared living quarters,
wrote a letter to the Respondent in which he identified himself as a customer of the
South Park store, said that he had talked with some of the employees, and com-
plained about the "under-paid and over-worked employees." About 2 days later,
the Respondent's official to whom the letter had been addressed discussed it with
Store Manager Grimes who, as a witness for the Respondent, acknowledged that
he became "pretty mad." Grimes decided to talk with Cloud about the letter. He
did not talk with other employees about it, however, because, as he testified, he
"didn't feel like it concerned them," but he "figured" that Cloud "might know some-
thing about it." 2 In his conversation with Cloud on July 24, the latter denied having
participated in the composition of the letter and of having known of it until after
it had been written. The testimony of Grimes and Cloud is conflicting with respect
to whether Grimes threatened to discharge Cloud if Grimes should learn that Cloud
had been instrumental in having the letter written, but this conflict need not be
detailed and resolved. It suffices to say that Grimes testified that he said to Cloud
that "it was funny that" Cloud "didn't know anything about" the letter, that he hoped
that Cloud had had nothing to do with it, but that if he "found out" to the contrary
he "could make it rough on" Cloud.
On August 5, -a Saturday, Grimes decided to transfer Cloud to the Deer Park
store which has only 9 or 10 employees. Grimes testified that about July 24 he
began to consider a transfer of Cloud to another store; that he later concluded that he
wanted a more experienced employee than Cloud for the South Park store; that
an employee in the Deer Park store, David Howard, possessed such experience;
that he believed that Oloud would profit by the training and supervision which were
available in a smaller store; that he decided to seek an exchange of the two men;
that on August 5 he sought and obtained by telephone the approval of his superior,
Eddie Sobbotic; that next he and Andy Pohodich, the manager of the Deer Park
store, agreed upon the exchange; that the exchange was to be effective on the next
workday, August 7; and that all these events had taken place by noon on August 5.
The afternoon of August 5 passed without further developments, but as 6 o'clock,
Grimes' quitting time, approached, he told Goodwin of the prospective transfer and
directed that Goodwin notify Cloud. Grimes went home. Soon Goodwin told
Cloud that Cloud was being transferred, effective the next Monday. Cloud objected,
Goodwin could give no reason and could suggest only that Cloud telephone Grimes,
and Cloud did so 3 Cloud complained to Grimes that he was being transferred
without notice and that he did not have an automobile with which to drive to
2 On direct examination, Grimes denied that he knew until the day the hearing opened
that Beasley and Cloud shared living quarters On cross-examination he contradicted
himself. Faced with his denial of having known of Beasley's and Cloud's living arrange-
ment before he learned of the letter, he could give no explanation for having selected
Cloud as the one employee among about 25 with whom to discuss the letter, and he then
reluctantly acknowledged that he may have known of the arrangement
s Grimes testified that, when he directed Goodwin to tell Cloud of the transfer, he gave
as the reason "additional training in a small store " On the other hand, Goodwin testi-
fied credibly that it was not until August 7 that Grimes told him the reasons for the
transfer were: (1) such training, and (2) that Cloud "believed in the union" or "sym-
pathized with the union." Grimes, however, denied that he talked with Goodwin on
August 7 about the reasons and that he ever told Goodwin that sympathy for the Union
was a reason. I credit Goodwin's testimony. I am mindful that subsequent to August 7
the Respondent terminated Goodwin's employment and that Goodwin may be hostile toward
it But Goodwin impressed me as having testified truthfully and reluctantly that Grimes
listed sympathy for the Union as a reason for the transfer On the other hand, Grimes
impressed me unfavorably, and his method of handling the transfer without advance
notice to, or discussion with, Cloud suggests strongly that a transfer for additional
training in Respondent's organization was not a genuine reason. In resolving the ques-
tion of the Respondent's motivation in arranging the transfer, I have considered, although
I do not recite here, the testimony for the Respondent which was given by Billie Bynum,
the head cashier at the South Park store
MORRIS, SEWALL & CO., INC . 1071
Deer Park from his residence near the South Park store. Grimes answered that
transportation was Cloud's "problem." 4 Cloud asked why he was being transferred,
and Grimes answered that Grimes had been ordered to make the transfer.5 Grimes
asked whether Cloud would report to the Deer Park store, and Cloud replied that
it would depend upon whether he could obtain transportation.
I find that the Respondent was invalidly motivated in determining to transfer
Cloud to the Deer Park store. The Respondent's contention that it intended to
train Cloud in a small store will not withstand scrutiny. A transfer for training
may be construed by the affected employee as a demonstration by management of
an interest in his development and possible advancement.6 Other employees trans-
ferred for such purpose had been given advance notice, and it is reasonable to con-
clude that, if Cloud's transfer had been similarly motivated, Grimes would have
discussed the matter with him. Here, however, Grimes arranged for Goodwin to
tell Cloud of the transfer after Grimes had left the South Park store on the last
day of Cloud's employment there, August 5. Indeed, Grimes selected Goodwin
to tell Cloud although Goodwin had not known that a transfer was to be made
and although Grimes assertedly had contemplated the transfer for some time.
Grimes' conduct on August 5 supports the findings previously made that on that day
Grimes did not give Goodwin a reason for the transfer and, when he talked by tele-
phone with Cloud, displayed a lack of sympathy with Cloud's transportation prob-
lem and said that he had been ordered to make the transfer. Turning to the question
whether Cloud's interest in the Union was the reason for the transfer, we have seen
that coincident with the beginning of union activity, the Respondent received from
Beasley a letter which wascritical of alleged working conditions in the South Park
store. The activity and the letter were unrelated. Grimes' reaction to the letter was
to conclude that Cloud had been complaining about working conditions and to
threaten to discharge Cloud, or to "make it rough on" him, if it should develop that
Cloud had had anything to do with the letter. By the date of that threat, July 24,
Cloud had signed a union authorization card. Later, when Goodwin spoke to
Cloud about some union cards which were in Cloud's shirt pocket, Cloud told
Goodwin that he intended to keep them. Finally, on August 7, Grimes told Good-
win that a reason for Cloud's transfer was that Cloud was sympathetic to the Union.
Clearly, contrary to Grimes' denial, he was aware of Cloud's interest in the Union.
It is a reasonable inference that Cloud's transfer was intended to move him from
a large store in Houston where union activities were underway to a small store
in a suburb where, insofar as the record discloses, there had been no such activities.
The remaining question involves Cloud's discharge on August 7. He did not go
to work at the Deer Park store on that day, but he telephoned the store' s manager to
report that he was having transportation problems, and he was told that he had been
replaced. According to the General Counsel, Cloud's telephone call was made
shortly after the hour at which he had been told to report for work. According to
the Respondent, however, Cloud had no intention of reporting for work and did
not make the call until the afternoon, by which time it had been necessary to ar-
range for a replacement. It is unnecessary to recite the evidence and to resolve the
conflicts. This is so because there was no obligation upon Cloud to accept the job
in the Deer Park store. The Respondent sought to make the transfer in violation
of the Act, and Cloud was not obliged "to acquiesce in such discriminatory transfer."
Electra-Mechanical Products Company, 126 NLRB 637, 649. Moreover, assum-
ing that Cloud rejected the transfer, his status is no less than it would have been
if the Respondent had invalidly discharged him on August 5 and thereafter had
offered him reinstatement in the Deer Park store. The job in that store not having
been substantially equivalent to the job in the South Park store because the former
job would have involved about 32 miles of travel each day to and from Cloud's
* Later that night, Cloud , who had not lived in Houston long, telephoned a local bus
line and was told that there was no bus running between Houston and Deer Park. The
record does not establish that there was bus service between those places, but Pohodich
testified for the Respondent that, although he was uncertain , he believed that there was
bus service within 4 or 5 blocks of the Deer Park store.
5 This finding is based upon Cloud 's testimony. On the other hand , Grimes testified
unconvincingly that he told Cloud that the transfer was being made in order to give
Cloud training in a small store.
9 There is testimony by Grimes , disputed by Cloud, that Cloud was an unsatisfactory
employee . It suffices to say that Grimes testified also that Cloud 's "inefficiency" lay in
his not having been as experienced as he had claimed, but that he could have advanced
"eventually" to the position of second assistant to a store manager.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
residence, instead of a short walk, Cloud would have been entitled to reject the rein-
statement . Electro-Mechanical Products Company, supra.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend that
the Respondent offer Cloud, who was in the Armed Forces at the time of the hear-
ing, full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equivalent position'' (The
Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827), without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
that it make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which
he normally would have earned (1) from, the date of the discrimination, August 5,
1961, to the date upon which he entered the Armed Forces, and (2) from a date
as set out in the footnote 8 to the date of an offer of reinstatement, less his net earn-
ings (Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-498) during said periods, the
payment to be computed upon a quarterly basis in the manner established in N.L.R.B.
v. Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344. Net backpay accumu-
lated between August 5, 1961, and the date Cloud entered the Armed Forces shall be
paid immediately without awaiting a determination of any amount which hereafter
may become due. The General Counsel urges that I recommend that the backpay
bear interest. Insofar as I have been able to learn, the Board has never awarded in-
terest in any case or expressly declined to do so simultaneously with a determination
that there had been a violation of the Act.9 The issue is now before the Board in a
number of cases 10 and doubtless will be resolved before a decision is issued in this
proceeding. I make no recommendation on the General Counsel's proposal.
I shall recommend that the Respondent preserve and, upon request, make avail-
able 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 and the right to rein-
statement under the terms of these recommendations. In order to make effective
the interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend that the
Respondent cease and desist, from, in any manner, infringing upon the rights guar-
anteed in that section. N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Cc, 312 U.S. 426; N.L.R.B.
v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4).
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
7 If Cloud has been discharged from the Armed Forces, my recommendation is that the
Respondent offer him immediate reinstatement. If he has not been discharged, my recom-
mendation Is that the Respondent notify him immediately, by certified mail addressed to
his last known address, that the Respondent will afford him an opportunity to apply for
reinstatement within 90 days after his discharge.
8If Cloud has been discharged from the Armed Forces, the date of discharge is the
applicable date. If he has not been discharged, the applicable date shall be 5 days after
his timely application for reinstatement following his discharge.
9In Sifers Candy Company, 92 NLRB 1220, the Board refused to award Interest in a
backpay proceeding. The Board gave no reason for the refusal. It may be observed,
however, that such an award could have been Interpreted as a modification of the Board's
original order in the case.
10 One such case Is Puget Sound Bridge & Dry Dock Co., Case No. 19-CA-2283 (not
published in NLRB volumes).
MORRIS, SEWALL & CO., INC. 1073
2. By discouraging membership in a labor organization through discrimination
in employment, and by interferring with, restraining, and coercing employees in the
exercise of their rights under the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1)
by interrogating and threatening employees concerning union and concerted activities
have not been sustained.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondent,
Morris, Sewall & Co., Inc., Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Retail Clerks Union Local No. 455, AFL-CIO,
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees, by transferring any of its employees because of their union
or concerted activities, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Soliciting employees to give their union authorization cards to the Respondent.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Edward Cloud full reinstatement to his former or substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or privileges, and
make him whole in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of the Intermediate
Report.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents all
payroll and other records as set forth in "The Remedy" section of the Intermediate
Report.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at its places of business in the metropolitan area
of Houston, Texas, including all places where notices to employees customarily are
posted, copies of the notice attached marked "Appendix." ii Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for at least 60 consecutive days there-
after. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.i2
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the Respondent interrogated or threatened employees concerning union or
concerted activities.
n In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
za In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Retail Clerks Union Local No. 455,
AFL-CIO, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, or in any other
labor organization of our employees , by transferring any of our employees
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because of their concerted or union activities, or in any other manner dis-
criminate in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to give us their union authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Retail Clerks Union Local No. 455, AFL-CIO,
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities.
WE WILL make Edward Cloud whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against him and we will notify him of his right
to apply for reinstatement within 90 days after his discharge from the Armed
Forces.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members in good standing of Retail Clerks Union Local No. 455,
AFL-CIO, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
MORRIS, SEWALL & CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 650 M & M
Building, 1 Main Street, Houston, Texas, Telephone Number, Capitol 2-7201,
Extension 041, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Liberty Electronics Corp . and Flight Electronic Supply Corp.
and Warehouse Processing & Distribution Workers' Union,
Local 26, International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union. Case No. 01-CA-45P23. September 27, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 1, 1962, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondents' exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
1 The request for oral argument , filed by the Respondents , is hereby denied as the
record, including the Respondents ' exceptions and brief , adequately presents the issues
and the positions of the parties.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
138 NLRB No. 110.