W. T. Grant Regional Credit Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 881 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

W. T. GRANT REGIONAL CREDIT CENTER
W. T. Grant Regional Credit 'Center and Southeast
Council , Retail , Wholesale and Department Store
Union, AFL-CIO. Case 10-CA-11197 and 10-
CA-11481
August 11, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND WALTHER
On May 5, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Max
Rosenberg issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions I
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief to
the exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
I Respondent is an adjudicated bankrupt currently engaged in the liqui-
dation of all its property and holdings On October 31, 1975, Bankruptcy
Judge John Galgay of the District Court for the Southern District of New
York, upon application, issued a restraining order staying and enjoining all
persons, firms, and corporations from commencing or continuing any court
or other proceeding against Respondent Respondent contends that because
of the restraining order the Board is enjoined from entertaining this pro-
ceeding and accordingly it should dismiss the complaint We disagree
Respondent's contention that Board proceedings are subject to a general
restraining order issued by a court of bankruptcy has been uniformly reject-
ed in both court and Board decisions in N L R B v The Baldwin Locomo-
tive Works, 128 F 2d 39, 44 (C A 3, 1942), a case involving the enforcement
of a Board order, the court stated
The jurisdiction of a United States District Court in bankruptcy does
not embrace the power to treat with a debtor's unfair labor practices
which affect commerce Nor is such a court's leave to the Board to
proceed in appropriate manner required By Section 10(a) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, the Board is expressly empowered to pre-
vent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, and that power is exclusive in the Board and unaffected
"by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may
be established by agreement, code, law, or otherwise" The Act more-
over explicitly removes the possibility of any restraint upon the Board's
power which might be thought to arise where the employer's properties
and business are operated under an order of a District Court in a
reorganization proceeding in bankruptcy [See Sec 15 of the NLRA ]
See also Matter of American Buslines, Inc, 151 F Supp 877 (D C Nebr,
1957), L E Durand Trustee in Bankruptcy of Turney Wood Products, Inc v
N L R B, 296 F Supp 1049 (D C Ark, 1969), McKesson & Robbins, Inc, 19
NLRB 778 (1940), enfd with modifications not relevant here 121 F 2d 84
(CA DC, 1941)
2 In the absence of specific exceptions thereto, we adopt the findings of
the Administrative Law Judge
We note that the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Stephanie
Rome was discharged in violation of Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act was founded
almost exclusively on the offer of proof made by counsel for the General
Counsel Rome did not appear at the hearing An offer of proof by itself is
insufficient to sustain a finding of a violation of the Act However, inas-
much as neither party has excepted thereto, we have adopted the finding of
the Administrative Law Judge as to Rome
881
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, W. T. Grant Regional
Credit Corp., East Point, Georgia, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in said recommended Order.
DECISION
MAX ROSENBERG , Administrative Law Judge : These cases
were heard before me on April 5, 1976, in Atlanta, Geor-
gia, upon a consolidated complaint issued by the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an
answer filed thereto by W. T. Grant Regional Credit Cen-
ter, herein called the Respondent .' At issue is whether Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be
detailed hereinafter . No briefs have been filed by the par-
ties hereto.
Upon the entire record made in this proceeding , includ-
ing my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as
they testified on the stand , I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent , a corporation with an office and place of
business located in Decatur, Georgia, is engaged in the
operation of a credit collection and service center . During
the annual period material to this proceeding , Respondent
received revenues in excess of $500 ,000. During the same
period , it purchased and received goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from suppliers located outside of Georgia.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find that
Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Southeast Council, Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is admit-
tedly a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act and I so find.
I The consolidated complaint, which issued on November 5, 1975, is
based on charges filed in Case 10-CA-I 197 on April 4, 1975, and served on
April 7, 1975, and charges filed in Case 10-CA-11481, which were filed and
served on September 5, 1975
225 NLRB No. 121
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ent and he [Wade] told him [Forsyth] that he [Wade]
thought that there were 25 people there and wanted to
know . . . how it went."
During the first or second week in March, Joy Forsyth
engaged in a conversation with Supervisor Wade at the
latter's desk. I find that, in the course of their colloquy,
Wade questioned her as to "how my Union was going and
I told him it wasn't my Union." Wade then inquired into
the number of employees who were union adherents. Mrs.
Forsyth responded that she was unaware of the representa-
tive figure, at which puncture Wade stated that "in the long
run the Union would hurt me. More than likely it would
not benefit us. It would hurt us."
On the basis of Joy Forsyth's uncontradicted testimony,
I conclude that Respondent, by Supervisor Wade's threat
made to her in March, and by his coercive interrogation of
Forsyth regarding her union activities and those of her fel-
low employees, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) when, on or about March 19, Center Man-
ager Constantine Gregory told the employees at the Deca-
tur installation that they were forbidden to discuss the top-
ic of unionization with their coworkers during nonwork
time. The testimony which would be supportive of this alle-
gation would have come from the lips of Stephanie Margo
Rome, an employee of Respondent who, as chronicled
hereinafter, was discriminatorily discharged on April 3.
Rome was unavailable to the General Counsel as a witness
in this proceeding, in consequence of which he sought to
make "an offer of proof." In this "`offer," the General
Counsel verbally recited that Rome had executed a union
designation early in February and had actively embraced
the Union's cause. During the week of March 10, Rome
conversed with two new employees on her lunch break. At
the conclusion of her repast, she was summoned to Super-
visor Gregory's office where Gregory warned Rome that
"he would not tolerate her speaking with any of his em-
ployees about a union; that he would not have it," without
defining either the times or places when and/or where this
restriction would obtain.
In light of the circumstances that, in its answer, Respon-
dent denied this allegation of the complaint, and the Gen-
eral Counsel did not support this allegation either by testi-
mony, affidavits, or otherwise, I conclude that his "offer of
proof" lacks the necessary evidentiary support to sustain
this averment. I shall, therefore, dismiss the allegation from
the complaint.
I turn next to a consideration of the General Counsel's
claim that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
by discharging Joy (Raffield) Forsyth, Lois Turner, Doris
Davis, Phyllis Grambling, and Stephanie Margo Rome on
April 3.
As indicated above, Forsyth was the most active propo-
nent of the Union at the Decatur center, a circumstance
which was well known to Respondent's Supervisors Nor-
man Stroud and Jerry Wade Thus, as heretofore found,
she held a union meeting at her home on February 19 at
which 19 of her coworkers attended. Thereafter, she at-
tended several union meetings and passed out union au-
thorization cards to employees at the regional credit center.
The day after the February session at her apartment, Su-
The consolidated complaint alleges that, on various
dates in March 1975,2 Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by the following misconduct of Center Manager
Constantine Gregory, Personnel Manager Carol Miller,
Collection Supervisor Jerry Wade, and Customer Service
Department Supervisor Marisabel Garcia, all of whom
were supervisors and agents of Respondent within the pur-
view of Section 2(11) of the Act: (1) On or about March 12,
Collection Supervisor Wade threatened employees that
they could be hurt if they participated in activities on be-
half of the Union; (2) on or about March 19, Center Man-
ager Gregory informed his employees that they would not
be permitted to discuss the Union with fellow employees
during the employees' nonworking time; (3) on or about
March 12 and 19, Wade, Gregory, and Personnel Manager
Miller coercively interrogated employees concerning their
union activities and desires; and (4) on or about August 26,
Customer Service Department Supervisor Garcia engaged
in the surveillance of a union meeting attended by
Respondent's employees. The consolidated complaint fur-
ther alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act when, on April 3, it discharged employees Stephanie
Rome, Lois Turner, Doris Davis, Phyllis Grumbling, and
Joy (Raffield) Forsyth because of their membership in, and
activities on behalf of, the Union, and because they en-
gaged in protected concerted activities with other employ-
ees for purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid and protection. In its answer, Respondent denies the
commission of any labor practices banned by the Act.
Although Respondent filed an answer to the consolidat-
ed complaint, it failed to make an appearance at the hear-
ing through counsel or otherwise, and presented no evi-
dence to controvert the testimony of the witnesses who
were called to the stand by the General Counsel. Accord-
ingly, that testimony is uncontradicted and I find the facts
herein to be as those witnesses testimonially reported them.
On two occasions during 1975, the Union launched or-
ganizational campaigns at Respondent's credit collection
and service centers in an effort to enlist the collective sup-
port of its employees The first drive commenced in Febru-
ary when Respondent's offices were located in Decatur,
Georgia. The second occurred in August after Respondent
moved its enterprise to East Point, Georgia.
The General Counsel's pleadings assert that, on or about
March 12, Collection Supervisor Jerry Wade threatened
employees that they would suffer economic harm if they
persisted in supporting the Union's organizational endeav-
ors. In this connection, Joy Forsyth 3 testified and I find
that a union meeting was conducted at the inception of its
initial campaign in her apartment on February 19, and ap-
proximately 19 employees attended. The following day,
Group Supervisor Norman Stroud asked Forsyth's fiancee,
who was also a supervisor at Respondent's Decatur estab-
lishment, "how the Union meeting went the night before
and he [Forsyth] said he didn't know, that he was not pres-
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein fall in 1975
3 At the time of the event in question, Forsyth was unmarried and her
surname was Raffield
W T GRANT REGIONAL CREDIT CENTER
pervisor Stroud asked Forsyth's future husband, who was
also a supervisor at the installation, how the union meeting
had progressed, and mentioned that he, Stroud, believed
that 25 individuals had been in attendance, a not complete-
ly inaccurate number. A few weeks later , Supervisor Wade
interrogated her as to how "[Mrs. Forsyth's] Union was
going," and threatened her that "in the long run the Union
would hurt me" as well as other employees.
That Respondent's officialdom was fully apprised of the
Union's interest in organizing the former's employees, and
of Forsyth's and other employees' ardor for collective rep-
resentation , is evidenced by two additional episodes which
occurred following the February 19 affair. It is undisputed
and I find, based on the testimony of Forsyth and dis-
charged employee Lois Turner, that Thomas P. Tierney,
Respondent's attorney, visited Respondent's establishment
and addressed groups of employees on February 27 and
28. In Forsyth's words, "Mr. Tierney held a meeting with
the whole center. It was divided for two different days
.... The Union was discussed . . . [Tierney inquired]
Why we felt we needed a Union, what reasons we had for
thinking that we needed a Union." Turner's recount of
Tierney's speech is to the effect that the latter "said he
understood we were in Union activities there and he, well,
actually, he said that he didn't see that the Union was
going to benefit us in any way any more than any of the
benefits we already had and a number of us did speak up
and declare why we felt that we needed a Union." The
second episode took place on March 21, on which date
Forsyth appeared at the Board's offices as a witness for the
Union where she encountered Attorney Tierney and Su-
pervisor Gregory who represented Respondent in the pro-
ceeding.
Forsyth further testified that, on March 26, Gregory of-
fered to elevate Forsyth to a supervisory position. It is her
uncontroverted testimony and I find that she told Gregory
"I would let him know." The following day, Forsyth re-
ported for work and informed Gregory that "I didn't feel
that I was qualified for it and also that I was on the com-
mittee for the Union and he [Gregory] said that he didn't
know anything about the Union and I told him that I had
heard that he did. He said, yes, that he had heard about the
Union." °
Despite the fact that Forsyth had previously been com-
plimented by Center Manager Gregory regarding her work
and had even received a $50 bonus for her performance of
duty on or about March 26 or 27 she was told by Supervi-
sor Conway on the morning of April 3 that she had re-
ceived a pink slip for admittedly being 8 minutes late that
morning and was therefore fired. It is undenied and I find
that, although it was Respondent's announced policy to
discharge employees who had received three disciplinary,
pink slips , Forsyth had theretofore received only one, and
that was on the morning of her termination.
In sum , I conclude, on the basis of the foregoing, that
° Forsyth may have been mistaken in placing the offer of a supervisory
job on March 26 and her refusal on March 27, in light of Supervisor
Gregory's letter to her dated February 27 confirming her declination to
assume the supervisor's position However, I do not deem this variance in
dates critical to a decision herein
883
Respondent selected Forsyth for removal from its employ-
ment rolls solely to rid itself of a known, active union sup-
porter, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Lois Turner had worked for Respondent for approxi-
mately 3 years prior to her discharge on April 3. Turner
attended the union meeting convened at Forsyth' s apart-
ment house on February 19, thereafter attended two other
union gatherings at the Mark Inn in Decatur, distributed
union authorization cards to approximately 10 fellow em-
ployees at Respondent's center, and carpooled with For-
syth and Phyllis Grumbling during her employment stint.
Prior to the February meeting in Forsyth's home , Turner
had been late for work about three times per month but,
curiously, had never been reprimanded for these lapses. A
week after the above-mentioned union conclave, Turner
reported for work 15 minutes late, was called to her
supervisor's office, and was handed a pink slip for her tar-
diness , the first she had received in the 3 years of employ-
ment with Respondent.' Indeed, Turner testified and I find
that, before the Union meeting in February, she was un-
aware of any instance in which an employee aad received a
written reprimand for lateness in reporting for work.
On the morning of April 3, Supervisor John Lane Cody
came to Turner's desk and beckoned her to accompany
him and Supervisor Conway to the rest area. Holding
Turner's timecard in his hand, Conway advised Turner
that she had been terminated. It is Turner' s undenied testi-
mony and I find that it was Respondent's declared policy
that employees would not be automatically discharged for
tardiness unless and until they had received three pink
slips.
Turner had attended the union meeting at Forsyth's
home on February 19 and, in addition to riding to work
with this ardent union activist, Turner also vigorously
sought to foster the presence of the Union in Respondent's
establishment in Decatur, Georgia. I have heretofore found
that Respondent knew of that union session , and I am con-
vinced that it was also aware of Turner's ..ttendance threat
as well as her activities in support of that labor organiza-
tion. In short, I conclude that Respondent discharged
Turner on April 3, not because of any pattern of tardiness,
but because she was a known, active union advocate. By so
doing, I conclude that Respondent viclated Section 8(a)(3)
of the statute.
Like Forsyth and Turner, Doris Davis had toiled for Re-
spondent for 3 years before she lost her job at
Respondent's center on April 3 for being late for duty.
With the inception of the Union' s initial organizational
campaign in February, Davis attended several union meet-
ings and distributed union authorization cards to employ-
ees in Respondent's parking lot. Davis reported late for
work on February 27, and Supervisor Stroud, who knew of
the union meeting at Forsyth's home on February 19, gave
her a pink slip for tardiness.6 On this occasion, Stroud ex-
plained Respondent's policy of automatically terminating
5 Turner testified and I find that employee Debbie Lawrence, who, so far
as this record stands, was not identified with the Union's organizational
efforts, had been tardy on a number of occasions after the February 19
union meeting and had not been officially cautioned by her supervisors
611 Is undisputed and I find that, prior to the February meeting, Davis
had been late for work but had never been reprimanded for this dereliction
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tardy employees who had received three pink slips. On
April 3, Davis was 6 minutes late for work and, when she
arrived at the center, she was summoned to the office, in-
formed that she was discharged, and given her paycheck
and vacation pay, which were already drafted, although
she had not been given three disciplinary slips at this point.
On the record before me, I find and conclude that Davis
was severed from Respondent's personnel staff on April 3
because she had joined and assisted the Union and not due
to tardiness. I therefore conclude that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by terminating Davis.
Phyllis Grambling had worked for Respondent for 3
years prior to her discharge on April 3 She attended the
union session at Forsyth's apartment on February 19, and
thereafter sought to enlist the union membership of other
employees during conversations with them in the employ-
ees' break area or ladies' lounge at the center, and distrib-
uted union cards. In addition, Grambling rode to and from
work with Forsyth and Turner.
On or about February 27, Grambling was late for work,
and Supervisor Stroud gave her a pink slip for this tardi-
ness, although it is uncontroverted and I find that she had
never been disciplined for at least six incidents of lateness
prior to the advent of the Union On April 3, Grambling
was 9 minutes tardy for duty. Supervisor Cody escorted her
to the break area and informed her that she was being
terminated for this lateness.
In light of the record facts, I deem Grambling's dis-
charge to be statutorily discriminatory. This employee had
been an active union supporter. She had been late for work
on at least six occasions prior to the Union's organizational
drive and had never been reprimanded for these absences.
That Grambling was a superior employee is evidenced by
her undenied testimony that, approximately 3 weeks before
her discharge, Supervisor Cody, who had terminated her
on April 3, informed her that he had been considering
making her a supervisor. Moreover, although Respondent's
policy provided for automatic termination after the receipt
of three pink slips, Grambling's personnel file had not
achieved that level when she was separated from
Respondent's employ. Accordingly, I conclude that Re-
spondent discharged Grambling because of her activities
on behalf of the Union and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
Stephanie Margo Rome was also discharged on April 3.
As chronicled above, Rome was not available as a witness
on behalf of the General Counsel in consequence of which,
in the absence of her testimony, he made an "offer of
proof." While I have heretofore found that the offer was
evidentially insufficient to establish that Center Manager
Gregory violated Section 8(a)(1) on or about March 19 by
his statements to Rome because it was not supported by
testimony, affidavits, or otherwise, I find no such infirmity
with the offer as it relates to the alleged discriminatory
discharge of Rome.
In his offer on this score, the General Counsel recited
that, if Rome had been called to the stand, she would have
testified:
That she signed a union authorization card for the
union in the early part of February, 1975. That, she
attended several of the union meetings. That she asked
other employees at the credit center to sign union au-
thorization cards and that she talked to other employ-
ees regarding their signing cards. . . She would testify
further that two days after attending her first union
meeting on February 19 at Miss Joy Raffield's [For-
syth's] home that she received a pink slip for being
late That the next time she was warned about tardi-
ness was on the day of her discharge, April 3, 1975.
That the policy of the company was that when . . .
that one was required to receive three pink slips prior
to being discharged. And, that prior to the first union
meeting many employees had been late, but the com-
pany had never said anything about it. She would also
name other employees who were late as often as she
and other 8(3)'s alleged in the complaint, but had nev-
er received a pink slip including one employee by the
name of Linda Denmark.
When summoned as a witness by the General Counsel,
Lois Turner testified without contradiction and I find that
she had observed Rome participate in a variety of union
activities prior to her discharge such as attending the union
meeting at Forsyth's apartment on February 19 and other
meetings, and distributing union designation cards to other
employees. Turner recalled that, about 2 weeks prior to
Rome's termination on April 3 for tardiness, Rome had
passed out some authorization cards to employees during
her break period, in consequence of which "Mr. Gregory
called her into his office because Mrs. Miller, Mrs. Carol
Miller, had seen her passing cards to some employees. He
said at that time that he did not want her to bother the new
employees, to keep her Union away from them. He didn't
want her approaching them."
In view of Turner's testimony detailed above, which is
undenied, I conclude that Respondent winnowed out
Rome for discharge on April 3 because of her union activi-
ties and that, by this conduct, violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act
The consolidated complaint alleges that, on August 26,
Respondent engaged in the unlawful surveillance of its em-
ployees' union activities by the conduct of Customer Ser-
vice Department Supervisor Marisabel (Marcia) Garcia. I
find that, on August 22, the Union distributed a leaflet to
Respondent's employees which announced:
There will be a Union meeting for all employees of
W.T. Grant, Tuesday, August 26, 1975, at the Mark
Inn, Sylvan Road, Room, 300-A.
The purpose of this meeting is to bring you up to date
on your organizing campaign.
The circular concluded with the exhortation that "This
meeting is important to each of you, please attend."
Ruth G. Johnson, who had been employed by Respon-
dent for almost 7 years, testified and I find that the union
meeting took place on August 26 as scheduled, and that
Johnson attended the session. Her testimony in undenied
and I find that Supervisor Garcia, who was known to John-
son as a statutory supervisor, appeared at the conclave and
was observed taking notes of the proceedings.
By the foregoing conduct of Garcia, I conclude that the
W. T. GRANT REGIONAL CREDIT CENTER
Respondent engaged in illegal surveillance of its employ-
ees' union activities and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
I have found that Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the Act and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the statute. I shall there-
fore order that Respondent cease and desist therefrom.
I have also found that Respondent discharged Joy (Raf-
field) Forsyth, Lois Turner, Doris Davis, Phyllis Gram-
bling, and Stephanie Margo Rome on April 3, because they
joined and actively assisted the Union in its attempt to gain
exclusive representative status at Respondent's business
operations in Decatur, Georgia, and thereby offended the
provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act To remedy these
violations, I shall recommend that Respondent make them
whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered as
a result of the discrimination practiced against them. The
backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accor-
dance with the Board's formula set forth in F W Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon
at the rate of 6 percent per annum in the manner pre-
scribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962). Inasmuch as Respondent is in the process of liqui-
dating all of its assets and has ceased functioning as a busi-
ness entity, and due to the lack of General Counsel's urg-
ing, I shall not order Respondent to reinstate the
discriminatees to their former positions.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby
make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer 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 discharging Joy (Raffield) Forsyth, Lois Turner,
Doris Davis, Phyllis Grambling, and Stephanie Margo
Rome, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment, in order to discourage their adher-
ence to and activities on behalf of the Union, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
885
the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the purview of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER7
Respondent, W.T. Grant Regional Credit Center, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees, thereby discriminating in re-
gard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to
discourage their engagement in union activities.
(b) Threatening employees with reprisals if they join
and assist the Union.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their
engagement in union activities or the engagement of their
fellow employees in such activities.
(d) Engaging in the surveillance of the union activities
of its employees.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole Joy (Raffield) Forsyth, Lois Turner,
Doris Davis, Phyllis Grambling, and Stephanie Margo
Rome for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination practiced against them, in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay
due herein
(c) Mail to the discriminatees found herein copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said no-
tice shall be provided by the Regional Director for Region
10 and mailed by Respondent to the last known addresses
of the named discriminatees.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
r 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
8 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 "
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed as
to those allegations not specifically found herein.
PPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees, thereby dis-
criminating in regard to their hire and tenure of em-
ployment, in order to discourage their engagement in
union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals
for joining or assisting the Union.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
regarding their engagement in union activities or the
engagement of their fellow employees in such activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT engage in the surveillance of the union
activities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL make whole Joy (Raffield) Forsyth, Lois
Turner, Doris Davis, Phyllis Grambling, and Stepha-
nie Rome for any loss of pay they may have suffered
as a result of the discrimination practiced against
them.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain
from becoming or remaining , members of any labor orga-
nization.
W. T. GRANT REGIONAL CREDIT CENTER