Zodys, Elkhart, Indiana

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 306 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Yankee Department Stores , Inc., a Subsidiary of
Hartfield-Zodys, Inc., d/b/a Zodys, Elkhart, Indi-
ana and Retail Clerks Union Local 37, a/w Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO Case
25-CA-5582
Upon the entire record , and from my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
June 10, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On February 11, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Benjamin B. Lipton issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter , Respondent filed excep-
tions and Retail and Department Store Employees,
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO,' filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings , findings,
and 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
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Yankee Depart-
ment Stores , Inc., a Subsidiary of Hartfield-Zodys,
Inc., d/b/a Zodys, Elkhart, Indiana, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
I Party in Interest herein.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding ' was tried before me on September 24 and 25,
1973,2 in Elkhart, Indiana, upon a complaint by the
General Counsel3 alleging that the Respondent engaged in
certain violations of Section 8(a)(2) and ( 1) of the Act.
Briefs filed by the General Counsel , Respondent, and
ACW have been duly considered.
I Respondent's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 All dates are in 1973 unless otherwise noted.
3 The charge was filed and served by registered mail on May 23, and the
211 NLRB No. 43
Respondent is engaged in the retail sale and distribution
of general merchandise in various States in the United
States . Executive offices are maintained in New York City.
This proceeding particularly involves a retail store and
facility in Elkhart, Indiana . Within the year preceding
issuance of the complaint, at its Elkhart store Respondent
sold and distributed products valued in excess of $500,000,
and received goods directly in interstate commerce valued
in excess of $50,000. Respondent admits, and I find, that it
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Retail Clerks Union Local 37, a/w Retail Clerks
International Association , AFL-CIO, is herein called the
RCIA. Retail and Department Store Employees , Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is herein
called the ACW. The RCIA and the ACW are each labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Principal Questions
1. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) by
recognizing and contracting with the ACW while a real
question concerning representation existed by virtue of
Respondent's awareness of a conflicting representative
interest by the RCIA and the pendency of an election
petition by the RCIA-thereby breaching its neutrality
obligation under the Midwest Piping doctrine.4
2. Whether Dale Palmer, a department manager, who
solicited employees to sign authorization cards for the
ACW prior to its recognition by Respondent, is a
supervisor under the Act.
3. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) by
recognizing and contracting with the ACW as a minority
union, i.e., when the ACW did not represent an uncoerced
majority of the employees in an appropriate unit.
Respondent and the ACW contend that recognition of
the ACW was validly accorded pursuant to a signature
check of authorization cards conducted by an impartial
third party, with notice to the RCIA, which established the
ACW's majority status. They further contend that the
RCIA's pending petition before the Board did not raise a
real question concerning representation because it was not
supported by a 30-percent showing of interest.
B. Background and Relevant Evidence
The material facts are virtually undisputed. The events
herein concern Respondent's opening of a new retail store
in Elkhart, Indiana . At the time, collective-bargaining
complaint herein issued on July 30.
4 Midwest Piping and Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060.
ZODYS, ELKHART 307
relations existed between Respondent and the ACW
embracing various stores in other States. A contract in
effect covering all stores in Michigan describes a unit of
..all regular selling and non-selling employees now em-
ployed or hereafter to be employed in and around the
employer's present and future stores located in the State of
Michigan," excluding at each store a manager, assistant
manager, department heads, leased department managers
(provided that at least one bargaining unit employee is on
the floor), guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The contract also contains union-shop and checkoff
provisions. In preparing for the opening and establishing of
the new store , about 20 employees were temporarily
transferred to Elkhart from other stores of Respondent.
There is no issue as to these employees; they were not
included in the Elkhart unit or involved in the counting of
authorization cards. A few persons were transferred
permanently, including three department managers. By
agreement of the parties, the employees of two lessee-
licensees in the Elkhart store are included in the unit:
Karl's Shoes operates a shoe department and Fabrics
National operates a "domestic" department. Respondent
commenced hiring employees in mid-April, and opened the
Elkhart store for business on May 2. During this period,
agents of both the ACW and the RCIA were engaged in a
campaign soliciting authorization cards, particularly in
front of the store entrance, within the awareness of
Respondent. r"
On April 25, the RCIA sent a letter to Respondent
stating in substance that it was currently engaged in
organizing the selling and nonselling employees in Elkhart,
that it already represented a substantial number, but less
than a majority, and that it would file charges with the
Board if Respondent recognized'the ACW or any other
party as the employees' representative. On April 26, the
ACW wired Respondent claiming majority representation
and requesting that an arrangement be made for a card
check by an independent third party and for bargaining
negotiations thereafter. On April 30, Respondent's vice
president, Harold B. Weiner, in New York wrote to the
ACW and the RCIA. The ACW was advised that
Respondent could not recognize either union unless such
union could prove "by independent acceptable lawful
designation cards" that it represented an uncoerced
majority of the employees. The RCIA was advised that the
ACW had presented a majority claim ; that Respondent
was prepared to examine the question whether either union
represented a majority "by any appropriate legal method
available"; and that, if the RCIA desired to have an
independent third party examine "the lawful designation
cards" of the RCIA or the ACW, Respondent "should be
pleased to have its suggestions." Respondent's letter was
received by the RCIA on May 3. About 1 p.m. that day, an
RCIA agent was dispatched to the Board's Regional Office
in Indianapolis with an election petition and 29 signed
authorization cards. The RCIA kept no duplicates of these
cards. The petition and cards were duly filed (Case 25-
RC-5360) and stamped in at the Board's Office at 4:05
p.m.
About April 27, Reverend Carl H. Richardson was
telephoned by an agent of the ACW and, in the
conversation, agreed to conduct a card check at the
Holiday Inn in Elkhart at 3 p.m. on May 3. Richardson
was not then advised of the procedures and had no
experience or knowledge in such matters. On May 2,
Michael R. Stoler, corporate personnel director of Respon-
dent, left New York for Elkhart with the understanding
that a card check would be conducted at a time to be
designated on May 3. On May 3, about 11:30 a.m., Stoler
met at the Holiday Inn with Max Unger, national
representative of the ACW. Stoler brought with him
various payroll and other data to identify the personnel at
the Elkhart store . Unger called off the names on ACW
authorization cards and Stoler indicated whether such an
individual was an employee. I agree with General Counsel
that this procedure was a "dry run" of the card check
which was arranged to be held at 3 p.m. that day. At 2:30
p.m., as he testified, Stoler decided to postpone the card
check until the next day at 10 a.m., and sent a wire to the
RCIA to such effect. Reverend Richardson was informed
of the postponement after he appeared at the Inn.
Harold Hewitt, executive officer of RCIA's Local 37,
upon returning to his office after 1 p.m. on May 3, was
given a telephone message left by ACW Representative
Ungar that a card check would be conducted at the
Holiday Inn at 3 p.m. that day. About 4 p.m., Hewitt and
another RCIA agent came to the Inn. They were advised of
the postponement, and made no response. In their
conversation with Stoler and Ungar, there was no
indication that the RCIA had any intention of participat-
ing in the card check. On return to his office, Hewitt
received Stoler' s telegram , which stated, inter alia:
... to afford you an equal opportunity we are
requesting that the cross card check be postponed until
tomorrow, May 4, 1973 at 10:00 a.m. at the Holiday
Inn....We request that you attend. If you fail to
attend we expect Father Richardson will proceed in
your absence to cross card check.
At 5:30 p.m., after receiving confirmation that the RCIA
petition had been filed, Hewitt wired Respondent in New
York stating that the only appropriate resolution of the
representation issue was through a Board election and that
the RCIA had filed a petition this day. On May 4, shortly
before 10 a.m., Hewitt telephoned Stoler at the Inn and
reiterated the substance of the RCIA's wire to Respondent
in New York. He specifically indicated that, as a petition
had been filed, the RCIA opposed the card check and
would not appear.
On May 4, about 10:15 a.m., without the presence of the
RCIA, Richardson was given instructions by Stoler, and
the card check was conducted. Signatures on ACW
authorization cards were compared against forms in the
employees' personnel files . On a document previously
prepared by the ACW captioned "Certification," Richard-
son inserted the results, indicating that the ACW had
submitted 53 valid cards of 65 employees in the bargaining
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit, and the 12 additional cards from the ACW were not
used in the card check .5 Immediately thereafter , Respon-
dent signed an agreement , previously prepared , in which it
recognized the ACW as exclusive representative in an
Elkhart unit of all full -time and regular part-time selling
and nonselling employees.
On September 23, Respondent and the ACW entered
into a collective-bargaining agreement, effective September
6, which referred to the employees at the Elkhart store and
specifically provided for wage increases , insurance, pen-
sion, union shop, and checkoff . Except as altered or
amended in the September 23 agreement , all the provisions
of the existing contract between these parties covering
stores in Michigan , supra, were adopted by reference, with
a copy of such contract attached. As earlier noted, the
Michigan contract described a multistore unit which
excluded department managers.
In the election petition filed by the RCIA on May 3, the
requested unit included department managers and exclud-
ed leased department managers and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act . On July 9, the RCIA filed an amended
petition which altered the unit only insofar as to exclude
the "non-leased department managers." The sole question
as to the department managers concerns their supervisory
status, and whether or not, specified in the petition, they
would statutorily be excluded if they were in fact
supervisors under the Act. Thus, the change in the petition
was not material and would not affect the question of
representation raised in the original petition.
In response to the Regional Director 's requests relating
to the filing of the May 3 petition , Respondent furnished a
list on June 13 "for checking of Petitioner 's interest" which
contains 66 names, including the 6 employees of Karl's
Shoes, and excluding all but 1 of the department
managers .6 On June 21, it furnished an IBM payroll
register of hourly personnel for the week ending May 5;
and on July 23 it submitted a handwritten list of all
personnel for successive weekly payroll periods from May
5 through June 30. The June 13 and July 23 lists show 72
employees as of May 5 , omitting Karl's Shoes and without
regard to 9 named department managers in dispute.
Reserving the latter question and adding the 6 employees
of Karl's Shoes, it is established that the unit complement
on May 4, the date of the card check, numbered 78
employees .? Of the cards held by the ACW from among
these employees , the RCIA had duplicate cards signed by
20 of the same employees.
Respondent proposed the stipulation that the nine
named individualss were the managers of specified leased
and nonleased departments as of May 2. The stipulation
was admitted that the two managers of the leased
departments , Karl's Shoes and Fabrics National, are
excluded from the unit .9 Respondent at first offered to
5 The actual unit as of May 4 consisted of 78 employees , without regard
to nine department managers in dispute , infra On a list of 67 names which
Respondent furnished Richardson for the card check , three department
managers were included and two employees were noted as terminated.
Cards were not examined for the department managers, but it appears that
the three names on the list were included as among the 65 employees stated
for the size of the unit . Not counted in the card check , because their payroll
signatures were not available , were six employees from Karl 's Shoes, for
whom the ACW had submitted six cards.
8 J. Flansburgh.
stipulate that all the department managers be excluded for
the purposes of the card count and for purposes of finding
the appropriate unit , with the exception of Dale Palmer.
This proposed stipulation was then withdrawn by Respon-
dent, and it refused to take a position on the department
managers . As to Palmer, Respondent would maintain a
separate position that he is not a supervisor . The final
stipulation of the parties is that the supervisory authority of
all the department managers , as named in the record, is the
same as that of Palmer on the basis of the evidence
litigated as to Palmer. Palmer testified he solicited cards
from about 30 employees beginning April 19, which he
gave to the ACW before May 3.
C. Conclusions
1. Dale Palmer
Personnel Director Stoler testified that it was standard
company procedure to exclude department managers from
any bargaining unit of Respondent 's stores in the country.
In the card check on May 4, Respondent and the ACW
omitted from the unit all department managers , including
Palmer. The contract they executed for Elkhart on
September 23, adopting the agreement for the Michigan
stores, excluded department managers . In these contracts,
supervisory status would provide the only plausible and
legitimate basis for excluding the department managers.
Palmer was the manager of the sporting goods depart-
ment in a Michigan store before he was transferred to
Elkhart on April 16, also as manager in sporting goods. At
the Elkhart store , Palmer himself performs physical
functions , and he has had one employee assigned to work
in the department under his direction . Among others,
Pamela Moran was employed on a regular part-time basis
in sporting goods for a period of 8 weeks from April 24,
and carried out her duties pursuant to Palmer's instruc-
tions.
Department managers and security guards are eligible
for special employment benefits not available to the
employees generally . All new employees receive from
Respondent and must sign a printed statement of store
procedures. Violation of any of these procedures is cause
for immediate dismissal . In the statement of procedures,
they are instructed to "check with the department manager
or store manager on other store procedures to familiarize
themselves with the workings of the Company, and to
notify their department manager any time they leave their
assigned area ." On a regular biweekly basis, department
managers have meetings with the store manager and
assistant manager to discuss operations in their respective
departments and in the entire store . Palmer attends such
meetings.
r These substantial differences from the list provided for the May 4 card
check and the list furnished the Regional Director on June 13 are not
explained by Respondent
9 Palmer, Preston , Jost, Flansburgh , M. White , Tenhave , Sieradzki,
Cogler, and McElroy.
9 The ACW did not join in this stipulation, and it would not take a
position at the hearing as to the inclusion or exclusion of the department
managers . In its brief, however , it argues that these individuals should be
included as nonsupervisors.
ZODYS, ELKHART
The parties stipulated in effect that all Elkhart depart-
ment managers have the same supervisory authority, and
no reason appears , to distinguish Palmer . While the July 23
personnel list prhpard by Respondent shows a store
manager and two assistant managers employed through
June 30, the testimony indicates only one assistant
manager was employed at the time of the hearing. In any
case, there would be only 2 or 3 supervisors over 87 unit
employees if the 9 department managers were to be
included, or a highly disproportionate supervisor-employee
ratio . 10 For all the foregoing reasons , I find that depart-
ment managers, and Palmer specifically, responsibly direct
employees and are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.
From the time Palmer was transferred to the Elkhart
store, on April 16, he wore a name tag while on duty with
the designation of department manager , and he was
otherwise known by employees to be such. He admittedly
solicited 30 signed authorization cards for the ACW prior
to May 4. I find these cards, not specifically identified, to
have been coerced.ll
2. Midwest Piping
When it granted exclusive recognition to the ACW on
May 4, following the card check conducted without the
presence of the RCIA, Respondent was well aware of the
substantial representative interest and claim of the
RCIA.12 The advance preparations for the card check were
apparently undertaken entirely by the ACW, even preced-
ing Respondent's letters responding to the formal claims it
received from both unions. Respondent's first notice to the
RCIA of any definite or scheduled card check was given
less than 1 day in advance of the actual event on May 4,
with a caveat that it would proceed in any case without the
RCIA. The RCIA was not obliged to participate and, in
my opinion, it properly sought to protect its interests by
filing an election petition on May 3. Faced with such
conflicting representative claims , as already described,
Respondent was under a duty to observe a strict neutrality
by not according recognition or any assistance to either of
the competing unions , particularly while a representation
petition was pending before the Board. The statutory aim
is to assure the unfettered choice of the employees
themselves . Applicable to the present circumstances, it has
10 See , e.g., McKinnon Services, 174 NLRB 1141; Swan Super Cleaners,
152 NLRB 103.
11 Moreover, in view of the described background of contract exclusions
of department managers at other stores, Palmer's wearing of the name tag,
and the written store procedures , I would hold that these newly hired
employees solicited by Palmer had reasonable grounds to believe that he
was a part of management even assuming that, technically, he was not then
a supervisor under the Act's definition.
12 It was not necessary that such interest be manifested by an express
demand for recognition. Indeed, as sufficient to create a real question
concerning representation , a showing of substantiality is not a requisite
element to the union 's claim in the context of rival organizing campaigns, as
here . American Bread Company, 170 NLRB 85, 88 . Much less can an
employer justifiably ignore the existence of such a claim of interest simply
because the union is not prepared or is not then in a majority position
formally to request recognition . The Drackett Company, 207 NLRB No. 80
13 Shea Chemical Corporation, 121 NLRB 1027; Telautograph Corpora-
tion, 199 NLRB 892.
14 E.g., Traub's Market, Inc., 205 NLRB No. 124; Inter-Island Resorts,
Ltd., d/b/a Kona Surf Hotel, 201 NLRB 139. General Counsel represented
309
long been the rule that an employer may not go so far as to
bargain collectively with any union until the question
concerning representation has been settled by the Board.13
There is no merit in the contentions that an exception to
the rule exists by reason of a claimed failure of the RCIA
to support its petition with an adequate showing of interest,
or that the petition and interest of the RCIA consisted
merely of a bare and ineffectual claim. It is well established
that such a showing is entirely an administrative matter for
the Board's determination, not subject to direct or
collateral attack.14 Accordingly, I conclude that, by
recognizing and contracting with the ACW during the
existence of a real question concerning representation
raised by the substantial interest claim and the petition
filed by the RCIA, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act, as alleged.15
3. Minority union recognition
As shown, the appropriate unit comprised 78 employees
as of May 4. The ACW had, at best, authorization cards
signed by 61 employees. Of these employees, 20 also signed
cards for the RCIA within the same relatively short space
of time. Such dual authorization cards do not reliably
reflect the employees' choice of bargaining agent and
cannot properly be counted to support the claim of
majority status of the ACW.16 Thirty ACW cards were
solicited by Palmer, a supervisor, and are therefore
invalid.17 On such a numerical basis alone, it is clear that
the ACW was a minority union when recognized by
Respondent on May 4. Since Palmer engaged in these
solicitations on such an intensive and substantial scale, it is
further found that all the ACW cards preceding May 4 are
tainted and rendered nugatory as employee designations of
the ACW.
The same evidence reflecting the ACW's minority status
obtained when Respondent executed a contract with the
ACW on September 23. Respondent's reliance on the May
4 card check cannot serve as a defense resting on alleged
good faith, since it acted at its peril.18 Therefore it is
concluded that, by recognizing and contracting with the
ACW, which did not represent an uncoerced majority of
that the Regional Director has in fact determined that the RCIA's petition is
properly supported by a showing of interest. The election is blocked by this
proceeding.
15 Midwest Piping and Supply Co, Inc., 63 NLRB 1060, and Shea
Chemical Corporation ibid And see, e .g., Oil Transport Co. v. N.L.R.B., 440
F.2d 664, 665 (C.A. 5, 1971); N.L.R.B. v. Tower Iron Works, Inc., 366 F.2d
189, 191 (C.A. 1, 1966); Teramana Brothers Coal Mining Company, 173
NLRB 581, 582.
18 E.g., Inter-Island Resorts, Ltd., d/b/a Kona Surf Hotel, 201 NLRB 139;
Intalco Aluminum Corporation, 169 NLRB 1034, enfd. in*pertinent part 417
F.2d 36 (C A. 9 1969); Allied Supermarkets Inc, 169 NLRB 927, and cases
cited in In. 3 therein; Playskool Inc., 195 NLRB 560, enforcement denied
477 F.2d 66 (C.A. 7, 1973). Distinguishing the basis for the court's denial of
enforcement in the latter case, it is clear in the present case that General
Counsel amply carried any burden necessary to prove the existence of dual
authorization cards.
17 E.g., Sweatermasters Co, Inc., 176 NLRB 301, 308; Pittsburgh Metal
Lithographing Co, Inc., et at, 158 NLRB 1126, 1133.
18 E.g., Intalco Aluminum Corporation, 169 NLRB 1034.
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the unit employees, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act, as alleged.19
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that , in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and
(1), Respondent recognized the ACW on May 4, notwith-
standing that such union lacked majority status , and that
on September 23 it entered into a collective -bargaining
agreement with the ACW, all during the pendency of a real
question concerning representation . In order to dissipate
the effects of Respondent's unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that Respondent withdraw and withhold all
recognition from the ACW and to cease giving effect to the
aforementioned collective -bargaining agreement, or to any
renewal , modification , or extension thereof, until such time
as the ACW shall have been certified by the Board as the
exclusive representative of the employees in question.
However , nothing herein shall require Respondent to vary
or abandon any wage , hour, seniority , or other substantive
features of its relations with its employees which have been
established in the performance of its agreement with the
ACW or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any
rights they may have thereunder . As the aforementioned
agreement , based on Respondent's unlawful recognition of
the ACW is invalid , the union-security provisions adopted
and contained in such agreement are likewise invalid. I
shall therefore recommend that Respondent reimburse all
present and former employees for all initiation fees, dues,
or other monies paid or checked off pursuant to the invalid
union-shop agreement executed on September 23, 1973,20
or any renewal , modification , or extension thereof, or
pursuant to any checkoff authorizations executed before
the date of compliance of this recommended Order.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The ACW and the RCIA are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By recognizing the ACW , and by executing a
collective-bargaining agreement with it containing union-
security provisions , when such union did not represent the
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, and
when a real question concerning representation of its
employees existed , Respondent has rendered and is
rendering unlawful assistance and support to the ACW
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing , Respondent has interfered with,
coerced , and restrained employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby
19 International Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union, AFL-CIO [Bernhard-
Ahmann Texas Corp I v N.L R B, 366 U.S. 731, 736
20 Interest at 6 percent per annum shall be added , in the manner set forth
in Seafarers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, 138 NLRB
1142.
Si In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby recommend the following:
ORDER21
Respondent , Yankee Department Stores , Inc. a Subsidi-
ary of Hartfield-Zodys, Inc., d/b/a Zodys, Elkhart,
Indiana, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting or contributing support to Retail and
Department Store Employees, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization , by recognizing such labor organization as the
exclusive representative of any of its employees for the
purpose of collective bargaining at a time when there exists
a real question concerning representation , or if such labor
organization does not represent the majority of employees
in an appropriate unit , or in any other manner.
(b) Giving effect to, performing, or in any manner
enforcing the collective-bargaining agreement executed
with the aforesaid labor organization on September 23,
1973, or to any modification , extension , renewal, or
supplement thereto , or any superseding agreement, or to
checkoff authorization cards executed pursuant to such
agreement , unless and until the said labor organization has
been certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining
representative of such employees ; provided, however,
nothing herein shall require Respondent to vary or
abandon any wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive
features of its relation with its employees which have been
established in the performance of such agreement or to
prejudice the assertion of employees of any rights they may
have thereunder.
(c) In any like or related 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 designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold any recognition from Retail
and Department Store Employees , Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, as the representative of its
employees for the purpose of collective bargaining unless
and until said labor organization has been duly certified by
the Board as the exclusive representative of its employees.
(b) Reimburse all present and former employees for the
dues and fees unlawfully exacted pursuant to the invalid
security agreement with the aforesaid labor organization,
as set forth in "The Remedy" section of the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision.
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to 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.
ZODYS, ELKHART 311
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 amounts of reimbursement due
under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its store and facility in Elkhart, Indiana,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 22
Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 25, shall, after being duly signed by
Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof,
in conspicuous places, including places where notices to
employees are customarily posted, and be maintained by it
for a period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
22 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgement 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 Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to Retail
and Department Store Employees, Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or•any other
labor organization, by recognizing, or contracting with,
such labor organization as the exclusive representative
of our employees for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing, at a time when there exists a real question
concerning representation, or when such labor organi-
zation does not represent a majority or our employees
in an appropriate bargaining unit, or in any other
manner.
WE WILL NOT give effect to our September 23, 1973,
agreement with Retail and Department Store Employ-
ees, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, or to any renewal, modification, or exten-
sion thereof, unless and until said labor organization
has been duly certified by the Board as the exclusive
representative of our employees; but nothing herein
shall be construed to require that we vary or abandon
any existing term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition
from Retail and Department Store Employees, Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as
the collective-bargaining representative of our employ-
ees, unless and until said labor organization has been
certified as such by the Board.
WE WILL reimburse all present and former employ-
ees, with interest, for any initiation fees, dues, or other
monies paid or checked off pursuant to the unlawful
agreement executed on September 23, 1973, with Retail
and Department Store Employees, Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or to any
renewal, modification, or extension thereof.
Dated By
YANKEE DEPARTMENT
STORE, INC., A SUBSIDIARY
OF HARTFIELD-ZODYS, INC.
D/B/A ZODYS, ELKHART,
INDIANA
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, ISTA
Center, Sixth Floor , 150 West Market Street , Indianapolis,
Indiana 46204 , Telephone 317-633-8921.