Chandler's Shoe Store

872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289. See N.L.R B. v. Seven-up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344. The liability of Respondent Union with respect to back pay shall end 5 days after it serves upon Respondent Company and Reynolds the notice of withdrawal of objections to Reynolds' employment provided hereinafter. See Mark R. Kunkel Plumbing, 119 NLRB 1623. The discharge of Reynolds and the conduct causing it strike at the heart of the Iights guaranteed employees by the Act. See N.L R.B. v. Entwhistle Mfg. Co., 120 F. 2d 532 (C.A. 4). These unfair labor practices are closely related to other types of unfair labor practices abridging the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act and piohibited by Section 8(a) (1) and 8(b) (1) (A) of the statute. There is reasonable ground to anticipate that Respondents will infringe upon other rights guar- anteed employees in the future unless appropriately restrained I shall therefore recommend below an order requiring Respondents to cease and desist from infring- ing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 11, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2 Earl Gordon d/b/a Gordon Electric Company is an employer within the mean- ing of Section 2(2) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of James E. Reynolds, Earl Gordon d/b/a Gordon Electric Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Earl Gordon d/b/a Gordon Electric Com- pany has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 5. By causing Earl Gordon d/b/a Gordon Electric Company to discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of James E. Reynolds in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (2) of the Act. 6. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 7 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Edison Brothers Stores, Inc., d/b/a Chandler's Shoe Store and Lloyd L. Larson, Petitioner and Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1257, AFL-CIO Edison Brothers Stores, Inc., d/b/a Leed's Shoe Store and Maurice M. Hill, Petitioner and Retail Clerks International Association, Local 1257, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 36-RD-121 and 36-RD-1°.7. April 2,3, 1D69 DECISION AND ORDER Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before E. G. Strumpf, a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 1 23 NLRB No. 107. CHANDLER'S SHOE STORE 873 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members, Bean and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioners assert that the Union, which is currently recognized by the Employer as the representative of the employees at the stores involved herein, is no longer such representative. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the follow- ing Treasons : 1 The Union moved to dismiss both petitions on the ground that the Employer, acting through Supervisor Johnson, improperly partic- ipated in the filing of the petitions. The Employer denies that Johnson is a supervisor, and that it initiated and fostered the decertification petitions by his or other activity. Edison. Brothers Stores, Inc., is engaged in the sale of ladies'- foot- wear and accessories in stores throughout the United States. It operates the three stores involved herein, in Portland, Oregon, of which two are named Leed's Shoe Store, and one Chandler's Shoe Store. The Union represents all employees actively engaged in handling or selling merchandise at the Leed's and Chandler's stores under separate agreements with the Union ending June 30, 1959.1 Johnson is the assistant Ina nager of one of the Leed's stores. In the absence of manager Robison, an admitted supervisor, he is in sole charge of the store and its personnel.' In that capacity, he has authority to assign work to employees and to grant them permission to leave the store during working hours, and to call in extras, whom he selects from a list prepared by the manager. He, together with the manager, possesss the only key to the store, and he presides over salesmen's meetings. Although Johnson does not have authority to hire or discharge any of the regular salesmen, he discusses employee job performance with the manager, makes effective recommendations as to discipline to be imposed, and recommends methods of improve- ment of job performance. He receives substantially more pay than '.In view of our Decision herein, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the petitions should be dismissed as prematurely filed. 2 The petition in Case No. 36-RD-13]. seeks to decertify the Union at Chandler's and the petition in Case :No. 36-RD-123 at. Leeds. 3Approximately 25 percent of. Johnson's working time lie acts as manager . In addition, Johnson replaces Robison on a full-time basis during the litter's vacations. 874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the salesmen and his compensation is computed on a different basis. Upon the basis of th foregoing, we find, contrary to the Employer, that Johnson is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act' On September 16, 1958, Johnson filed a petition seeking to decertify the Union as representative of employees at the Employer's Portland, Oregon, stores.' After Board investigation, Johnson was informed that, as the Union and Employer had negotiated separate collective- bargaining contracts for the Chandler and Leed's stores, separate petitions were required. Johnson thereupon withdrew the petition. On the .day on which the petition was withdrawn, Johnson met employee Larson 6 and "explained to him the stores were under sep- arate contracts . and that I could no longer represent them (i.e., at Chandler) I explained to him the necessary papers." He states further : "I showed him the papers I had got from Mr. Strumpf' . . and then I typed up petition . . . and I showed it to Lloyd and I gave it to him and I told him that I could no longer represent them in the store" (i.e., Chandler). On October 22,1958, Larson filed the peti- tion in Case No. 36-RD-121 to decertify the Union at the Employer's Chandler store. On October 21, 1958, Johnson filed another petition 8 to decertify the Union as representative at the Leed's stores. Upon investigation of Johnson's second petition by personnel at th Board's Regional Office, Johnson was again requested to withdraw the petition because of his job classification as assistant manager. Johnson then spoke to Hill, who on occasion acts as an assistant manager,9 and discussed with him the proposed withdrawal of the petition in Case No. 36-RD-120. Following the discussion, Hill states he appointed him- self "a committee of one" to file the decertification petition. On No- vember 3, 1958, Johnson withdrew the petition. On the same day Hill filed the petition,1° in Case No. 36-RD-123 to decertify the Union at the Leed's stores. As it appears from the foregoing, that the Employer, through Supervisor Johnson, initiated and fostered the filing of the petitions herein, we, therefore, grant the Union's motion and dismiss the petitions." [The Board dismissed the petitions.] 4 Leeds Shoe Stores, Inc., 117 NLRB 585, 592. 5 Case No. 36-RD-118. ° Petitioner in Case No. 36-RD-121. 7 The representative of the Board. 8 Case No. 36-RD-120. ° At the time of the hearing , Hill was an "acting assistant manager." 10 Case No. 36-RD-123. 11 See Bond Stores, Inc., 116 NLRB 1929; see also Birmingham Publishing Company, 118 NLRB 1380, 1383.