Heck's, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 19, 1966158 N.L.R.B. 121 (N.L.R.B. 1966) Copy Citation HECK'S, INC. 121 Heck's, Inc. and Food Store Employees Union , Local $347, Amal- gamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North Amer- ica, AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-CA-3582. April 19, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On January 19, 1966, Trial Examiner Benjamin B. Lipton issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond- ent 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 Deci- sion. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has, delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chair- man McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria]: 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 recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following modifications : [1. Delete the period at the end of paragraph 1(c) of the Recom- mended Order and at the end of the third indented paragraph of the notice, and substitute theref or a comma and the following : '["except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment, as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of -1959." [2. Add the following as paragraph 2(b) and consecutively reletter the present paragraph 2(b) and those subsequent thereto: ["(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 Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after dis- charge from the Armed Forces."] . 158 NLRB No. 21. 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STA CEMENT OF THE CASE Hearing in this proceeding was held before Trial Examiner Benjamin B Lipton in Parkersburg, West Virginia, on September 2, 1965, based upon a complaint by the General Counsel,' alleging that Respondent discharged Donna Jean Hunt in violation of Section 8(a)(3), and unilaterally reduced the working hours and raised the wages of employees in violation of Section 8(a)(i) of the Act At the hearing all parties were represented and afforded full oppoitunity to present relevant evidence Oral argument on the record was waived A brief filed by Respondent has been duly considered Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Respondent is engaged in the retail department store business at various locations in West Virginia and Kentucky Only its store in Parkersburg, West Virginia, is the subject of this proceeding During the year preceding issuance of the complaint, Respondent had a gross volume of retail sales valued in excess of $50,000, and it had a direct inflow in interstate commerce of purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $500,000 Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It is admitted, and I find, that the Charging Party, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Discharge of Jean Hunt Early in October 1964 the Union commenced its organizational drive at the Parkers- burg store Business Representative Woodrow R Gunnoe made the initial contact with Ruby Peary, who secured employee names and addresses, and generally under- took leadership in the ensuing campaign Hunt signed a card on October 10 and was one of the employees particularly active on behalf of the Union As Gunnoe testified, when Peary was discharged on December 19, 1964, Hunt "then assumed more or less the leadership in the store for the union' Ina prior proceeding involving this store,2 the Board adopted the factual finding of the Trial Examiner that Peary 3 was termi- nated "for the simple and admitted reason that she sat at a table in a public restaurant, during her supper hour, with Union Representative Gunnoe " She was seen there by employee Hazel Thomas, who promptly informed Store Manager William Angel, and he fired Peary the next day 4 At the previous hearing, on March 16 and 17, Hunt testified for the General Counsel and, inter alia, identified her signed authorization card After her discharge, Peary was employed by the Union, and in such capacity visited the store, where she spoke to Hunt on occasions in March and April Also, at times before and after the prior hearing, Gunnoe came into the store and talked with Hunt, among others It is uncontradicted that in at least two instances, when Gunnoe was in the company of Hunt, Store Manager Angel was 4 to 6 feet away ' The charge by the Union was filed on May 12, 1965 and the complaint thereon was issued on June 28 1965 All dates herein are in 1965 except as otherwise specified 8156 NLRB 760 Official notice is taken of the Board s holdings that Respondent discharged two employees in violation of Section 8(a) (3), refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a) (5), and independently violated Section 8(a) (1) by coercively Interrogating employees threatening reprisals to discourage their union ac- tivities , and soliciting them to disavow their union membership 8 Referred to in the former case as "Rule Perry " 4 Because Peary as a department head was found to be a supervisor and the record did not establish that her discharge was motivated other than by a purpose to discourage her union activity as a supervisor the Board dismissed the allegation that her discharge was unlawful HECK'S, INC 123 On April 9 the employees on the 1 to 9 p in shift were assembled in the store and addressed by Haddad, president of Respondent, in the presence of Angel, Assistant Store Manager Larry Copley, and Hardware Manager Darrell Ellis He said, in sub- stance, that business had dropped, the store was a mess, merchandise was not being brought from the warehouse to the selling floor, conditions had to change, they would no longer be "nice" to the employees, in the next 3 weeks he would have a check made on the employees concerning their appearance, how they waited on customers, and how they worked together and a personal record would be kept on each employee, at the end of the 3 weeks if their record was not good the employees would be fired, and he would then let the employees go one or two at a time, this had nothing to do with the Union, he understood some union cards had been signed but did not know which employees had signed and employees who signed cards were wrong to think that they did not have to work One employee complained to Haddad that she and another employee were being accused by prounion employees of having caused the discharge of John McLund Ellis explained that McLund was fired because his "department was down 31% " Upon reading a note which Ellis handed him, Haddad asked Hunt directly whether she had threatened to throw a rock through the window She replied, "No sir, I did not " He said that if she did it would be the same as threatening him, and he would fire her Hunt then wanted to know who had told him this After she repeated the question, Haddad replied he did not know, but if he found out he would write her a personal letter s Hunt was hired on July 20, 1964, in the clothing department, and shortly thereafter was transferred to the cosmetics department, where she performed sales and stock work until her discharge, heie in issue, on April 10 She started at $1 an hour and was earning a $1 20 when she left Peary was department head in cosmetics and, fol- lowing her discharge in December, supra, she was succeeded by Hazel Thomas Respondent admits that the evidence establishes that it had knowledge Hunt was supporting the Union 'at least to some degree ' However, it disputes the existence of evidence that it knew or suspected Hunt as being active or a leader in behalf of the Union That prior to her discharge Hunt did in fact assume a principal role in the union movement is sufficiently shown While the "degree" of Respondent's knowledge of this fact is not critical to the issue, the evidence in my opinion justifies an inference that Respondent was aware of Hunt s leadership activities The nature of the unfair labor practices in the prior case reveals clearly a disposition of Respondent to learn the identity of the union activists, through infoimers and otherwise, and to coerce and take reprisals against them Also, among other things, the dialogue which occurred between Hunt and Haddad during his speech on April 9 in the context is indicative at least that Hunt was suspected in the eyes of Respondent In its answer to the complaint, Respondent states that Hunt was discharged solely for the reason that she "had been warned about her work repeatedly and customers had complained about her poor appearance and work habits' Numerous incidents concerning Hunt are ielied on in the testimony produced by Respondent, as shown infra Angel testified that he had made the decision to terminate Hunt based on his review of her personnel file in which were inserted critical comments by Angel and Copley on forms called "Supervisor' s Personnel Report " According to Angel, these reports are made out regularly for each employee as standard practice of Respondent, and they contain various detailed entries relating to work performance, wage rate, absen- teeism, and tenure 6 There were no such reports on Hunt during her employment- until February 3, 1965 7 Angel indicated that about a month after he was transferred to the Parkersburg store, on November 9, 1964, he discussed store conditions with Copley and, particu- larly concerning Hunt, "We had dropped hints to the fact that things were not up to 5 Hunt received no further communication from Respondent on the subject At the hearing she was cross examined as to whether she had made such a threat which she again denied Upon Inquiry, Respondent stated that such an alleged threat by Hunt was not part of its defense 6 Angel was plainly inconsistent and evasive concerning the full content of Hunt's personnel file which was not produced, and later stated that he did not recall if Hunts file had any reports other than those offeied as exhibits by Respondent These exhibits were admitted without objection not for the truth of the statements made therein but merely as reports appearing in Hunts personnel file at the time she was discharged 7 The other reports preceding the expressed decision to discharge Hunt are dated March 15 , April 1, two on April 5 and two on April 8 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD standard .... We did not want to come right out and say to a person that you are not up to the standards. We don't feel' ... that your personal appearance or your cleanliness , what have you, your work habits should be brought up to her face to face." ' In his final "Supervisor's Personnel Report" dated April 10, Angel wrote, "This girl is one of the slowest persons I have ever run into, she moves so slow she almost drags herself, her personal appearance was awful, and cleanliness was terriable [sic], wore dirty clothes to work & smelled awful, she was told of this but refused to do anything about it to correct this, customers have complained about her dirty stringy hair down over her face almost hid-her face & it smelled awful, I told her of this [quote] she said `alright, fair enough' when I fired her." It is startling to read such a harsh indictment, and regrettable that it needs to be set forth for consideration, espe- cially as it is unjustified and unwarranted in the evidence.8 Hunt testified unquali- fiedly that , during her entire employment at Heck's, she was never reprimanded in any way or given a warning of any kind.9 Concerning Hunt's appearance, much was sought to be made by Respondent of the condition of her hair. The specific evidence relating to the complaints of customers consisted of testimony of Iva Husk, a "supervisor of girls" at Ralph's Market, located across the street from Respondent . 'She is a customer of Heck 's, and goes in there "occasionally" on her lunch hour and days off. She related that one night, in the spring, Hunt came into Ralph's on her way home. "Some of the girls" at Ralph's asked Husk what she would do if they came to work "like that," and Husk said she would "probably give you a comb and brush and send you home to be combed." Husk commented about this incident to Thomas, the cosmetics department head. Husk was never waited on by Hunt, but she had seen Hunt on previous occasions and her hair was "always the same." Husk described Hunt as having a lot of hair, real bushy, just pushed up, hanging long; and she called the hairdo "fantastic." Viewing Hunt in the courtroom, Husk said that her hair was "about like it is now, maybe ... combed a little neater today." I disclaim any expertise in the esoteric realm of style and taste in female coiffure . Being impelled by the confrontation , I must state quite frankly that I observed nothing untoward or objectionable in the hair arrangement of Hunt. - Thomas testified that "several" customers commented that Hunt 's hair "wasn't fixed good and some complained about B.O., and just her general appearance." Asked to identify the customers, Thomas just remembered two girls, Dixie and Iva, who came in from Ralph's Market, and the others were customers she did not know. She had never discussed this subject of appearance with Hunt, because "I didn't feel that it was my place. I am not that type of person to go to anyone and tell them about their personal appearance." When she got customer complaints, she took them to Angel and Copley, fixing the time a week or two before Hunt's discharge.10 Upon Respond- ent's question as to whether she ever had occasion to talk to Hunt about "working habits," Thomas recited only one specific instance: shortly before Hunt was fired, when she asked Hunt "three times to take some bandaids out on the shelf and she just refused." Thomas reported the incident to Angel.ll However, she averred that she was never instructed by Angel or Copley to reprimand Hunt or to warn her of dis- charge in any way. Copley testified that, about a week before Hunt was discharged, he talked with her about her appearance. She said she thought she would have her hair fixed, and he told her he "thought she should because it would probably make her look better, feel better. Probably be the last warning." At another point, he stated generally that he told her she had been warned about her appearance by Thomas and Angel. The pre- vious occasions in which he had reprimanded or warned her were "just about keeping the stock [on the] floor and things like that." 12 However, he told all the employees 8 Hunt is a young lady who appeared to me to be in her late teens or early twenties. 0 Respondent did not cross -examine her on this testimony. 18 Angel testified at one point that when Thomas reported to them on the matter, he and Copley told Thomas "to gradually drop the hint-you do not want to come right out and tell this to an employee 's face-that all employees were to have permanents, have hose, be presentable to be on the floor to greet them." At another point, he testified that Thomas and Copley reported to him that they did "warn" Hunt. "The only "Supervisor's Personnel Report" which would possibly embrace thislincident is dated February 3, and Angel noted therein that he "told Hazel to try to make the best of it that Jeanie would come around." 12 Copley filed a "Supervisor 's Personnel Report" concerning such conversation with Hunt on April 5. HECK'S, INC. 125 the same thing, and gave them the same "warning," about bringing stock from the warehouse to the selling floor. The "warnings" he gave to Hunt were no more than those he gave to the other empoyees. Later in the day after the Haddad speech on April 9, Copley inserted a report in Hunt's personnel file stating: "I noticed that Jeanie Hunt hasn't taken any of the warnings to heart, so I am recomending [sic] that she be dismissed. After Mr. Haddad talked to her & the other employees she has made no effort to straiten up [sic]." Angel described additional infractions by Hunt on which he relied, e.g.: (1) A week or two before her discharge on April 10, Thomas paged Hunt four or five times at 2- or 3-minute intervals to come into the cosmetics department. Finally he himself observed that when Hunt "came across the floor," she was not coming from her department. She had a candy bar in her hand, although all employees are instructed not to eat on the floor. In rebuttal, it was clearly shown that Hunt and Nancy Martin at the time were taking a permitted shopping period; that Hunt was paged only twice, 3 or 4 minutes apart, and that nothing was said to either of them about the incident at any time. (2) Purportedly, Hunt took a telephone call in her department from Shelah Holstein, an employee at the Nitro warehouse, who wanted to have an "ad count" taken. Hunt told Holstein that the department head, Thomas, was not there at the time and that she would have to call back when Thomas returned. On another occasion, Hunt told Holstein that they had "plenty" of a certain merchandise, but "when the ad broke," there was insufficient merchandise to substantiate the ad.13 Angel discussed these matters with Thomas who told him that Hunt denied both charges. Angel wrote up these incidents on note paper for Hunt's file with the date of March 18 (he happened to be out of "Supervisor's Personnel Reports") in which he repeatedly referred to Hunt as having "lied." Thomas made no reference to such incidents in her testimony; nor did Respondent attempt to refresh her concerning the same.14 On rebuttal, Hunt testified that she had no part whatsoever in connection with either of these telephone calls. Thomas did describe to her that Frank Walker from Nitro had called Thomas and said that Susan Lee (who then worked in cos- metics) had spoken to him "worse than a dog." A few days later, Thomas informed her that reports were coming from the warehouse that they were getting "snotty answers" from the girls and it would have to stop. Hunt told Thomas that she had not done that. (3) A number of times Hunt had been observed stacking merchandise near the cash register. She was talking to the cashiers and slow doing her work. (4) After the Haddad speech on April 9 criticizing the personal appearance of employ- ees, Angel observed later that day and the next day that Hunt had not changed, whereupon he fired her. Angel explained that Haddad's reference to a period of 2 to 3 weeks, during which the employees would be checked, was not a "guarantee" of work if the employees were not doing the things they were supposed to.15 Conclusions as to Hunt The questions presented are essentially factual, requiring credibility determinations. Initially, it should be stated that the character of the testimony of Respondent is extremely poor. Despite rulings and cautionary remarks by me, the use of leading questions was persistent, and to a substantial degree evidence was adduced in the form of conclusions and without probative specificity. In major respects there are conflicts in the testimony of Respondent's principal witnesses. In particular, Store Manager Angel impressed me as evasive, self-contradictory, and unreliable generally to be credited. Thomas was the informer precipitating the discharge of Peary because of her association with the Union, and thereafter assumed Peary's job as department head over Hunt. She seized or expanded on innocuous and idle gossip of girls at Ralph's Market to deprecate Hunt's personal appearance as a ground for her removal. Nor was Husk a disinterested and reliable witness, considering inter aria the existence of a campaign by this Union to organize Ralph's Market, at which she was a supervisor. In the context of his conversation with Hunt regarding her appear- ance, Copley's avowal that he told her it would "probably be the last warning," seems highly implausible. And his so-called warnings to Hunt respecting the general problem of keeping stock on the selling floor were admittedly no different from the 18 Holstej- aas not called to testify. 1* Angel testified he also spoke to Hunt, who told him substantially what he heard from Thomas . He said he "warned " her at the time that whenever she received such a call .or information she was to give the answer. In his written note on the incident, he made no mention of talking to Hunt, but stated she had "lied to Thomas." ' It was not shown whether such a "check" was actually conducted, or what general action Respondent took with regard thereto. 126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD instructions given to all other employees Moreover, his testimony was equivocal, shifting, and unpersuasive Hunt's appearance and cleanliness-a criticism largely dwelled on by Respondent-was indeed the same throughout her employment, which began back in July 1964 Yet the first indication of concern by Respondent appears in a `Supervisor's Personnel Report" dated March 15, in which Angel noted, through Thomas' information, the "complaints" of the girls at Ralph's Market It is also significant that the "Supervisor's Personnel Reports," supposedly a regular and daily practice, suddenly accumulated in Hunt's file shortly prior to her discharge These reports are plainly self-serving and I am convinced, were deliberately planted to build up support, albeit fallacious, for her anticipated termination I credit Hunt's testimony generally, and specifically that she had never been reprimanded or warned regarding any of these matters By the r nature, the multifarious offenses attributed to Hunt attest the artifice of Respondent I conclude and find that the true motive for her discharge was to discriminate against her for her union activity, and to dis- courage union membership, in violation of Section 8(a) (3), as alleged B Restraint and coercion The complaint alleges as violative of Section 8(a) (1) Respondent's unilateral actions-in April 1965 of reducing working hours, and in May 1965 of increasing wages-for the purpose of undermining the Unions majority status Respondent s answer asserts in substance that, as to all its stores, the working hours of employees were reduced from 43 hours a week "because of the forth coming application of the Federal Wage and Hour Law," and wage raises were given to all employees in line with its practice of reevaluating pay rates twice each year At the hearing, it also stated the position that it was not obligated to deal with the Union The parties stipulated th-it (1) during late April or early May 1965, Respondent unilaterally reduced the working hours of its hourly rated employees, and (2) about May 31, 1965, Respondent unilaterally granted its hourly rated employees an increase in wages, which became effective June 18, 1965 Nancy Martin and Mary Spiker testified that Angel told each of them not to discuss their wage raise with any other employees because there weie a few who were not getting the increase Opeiating Manager Ray Darnall testified that about 15 percent of the employees did not receive the raise because they had not been with the company long enough, or Respondent felt they did not deserve a iaise, or they had received a merit increase since the previous general wage raise No evidence was introduced by Respondent concerning its reason for the reduction in hours In its brief Respondent did not discuss the questions relating to the change in wages and hours beyond the statement that there was no dispute that such unilateral" actions were taken and "the only issue remaining" was Hunt's discharge In light of the stiong showing of union animus on Respondents part, and its failure adequately to explain by evidence the reasons for its unilateral changes in working conditions, it is found and concluded that Respondent favorably changed the wages and hours when it did for the purpose of influencing and coercing the employees with regard to their union membership and adherence, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 16 IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of 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 commerce and the free flow of commerce V THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action 1e N L B B v Exchange Parts Company 375 U S 405 As previously found by the Board supra, the Union, on and after October 22 1964 was the exclusive bargaining agent of all Respondents employees at the Parkersburg store It is clear from the record that Respondent acted unilaterally with respect to mandatory subjects of bargaining I e wages and hours without notifying and consulting with the Union Within the framework of the complaint, it is additionally or alternatively found that Respondent theieby violated Section 8(a) (1) See, e g, N L It B v Bonne Katz etc, d/b/a Williams burg Steel Products Co 369 U 8 736 HECK'S, INC 127 designed to effectuate the polic es of the Act In the present and in recent prior cases, the Respondent has been found to have engaged in extensive violations, including discriminatory discharges and serious acts of coercion 17 Consequently, a cease-and- desist order in its broad form appears fully warranted 18 I will recommend that Respondent offer Donna Jean Hunt immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would normally have earned, absent the discrimination, from the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings during such period, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F W Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289 Backpay shall carry interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 Further, it will be recommended that Respondent 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 and useful to determine the amount of backpay due and the right of reinstatement under the terms of the Recommended Order Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 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 discriminatorily discharging Donna Jean Hunt, thereby discouraging mem- bership in 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 the foregoing, and by other acts and conduct interfering with restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 5 The afoiesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that Respondent , Heck's, Inc , its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Discouraging membership in Food Store Employees Union, Local #347, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization , by discharging or in any other manner discrimi- nating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment (b) Unilaterally reducing working hours, increasing wage rates , or altering other conditions of employment for the purpose of coercing employees with regard to their union membership or adherence , or without notifying and consulting with the above named Union, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees affected (c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer Donna Jean Hunt immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights or privileges and make her whole for any loss of earnings , as set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner 's Decision entitled "The Remedy " 17 150 NLRB 1565, 156 NLRB 760 18 N L R B v Etepresa Publishing Company, 312 U S 426 , N L R B v Entwistle Jffg Co,120P 2d532 (CA 4) 128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personfiel records and reports, and all other records as set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Post at its Parkersburg, West Virginia, store and warehouse, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 19 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 9, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 con- secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith 2° , 19 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 be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 211n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the 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 Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Food Store Employees Union, Local #347 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discharging or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT unilaterally reduce working hours, or raise wage rates, or otherwise alter working conditions, for the purpose of coercing employees with regard to their union membership or adherence, or without notifying or con- sulting with the above-named labor organization as exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of the employees affected. WE WILL. NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ- ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bar- gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer Donna Jean Hunt immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of her discriminatory discharge. HECK'S, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Repiesentative) " (Title) NoTE.-We will, notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full reinstatement upon applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train- ing and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room 2023 Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, Telephone No. 684-3627. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation