Happy Food Center, Inc.

702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD units of employees at the Employer's Lihue, Hawaii, plant, as follows: 17 (a) Case No. 37-RC-1162: All full-time and regular part-time mechanical department employees including layout and pasteup em- ployees, Linotype operators, stereotypers, pressmen, proofreaders, photoengravers, teletype setters, binders, mailroom employees, com- positors, and metal melters, but excluding guards and supervisors as defined in the Art. (b) Case No. 37-RC-1164: All full-time and regular part-time nonmechanical department employees including employees in the editorial, business, circulation, and advertising departments, the truckdriver, and the building maintenance employee, but excluding the circulation department manager and all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. As noted, supra, since no union is seeking the unit advanced by the Employer, and because the separate units petitioned for by the re- spective Unions are appropriate, we shall dismiss the Employer's petition in Case No. 37-RM-60. [The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 37-RM-60.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 17 As the units found appropriate herein are broader than those sought by the Peti- tioners, each Direction of Election is conditioned upon each Union Petitioner demon- strating, in its own case, within 10 days from the date of this Decision , that it has an adequate showing of interest in such broader unit. In the event that either Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election in the unit found appropriate in this case , we shall permit it to withdraw its petition upon notice to the Regional Director within 5 days from the date of this Decision. Happy Food Center, Inc. and Retail Store Employees Union Local 782, AFL-CIO. Case No. 17-CA-2551. August 26, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On May 21, 1965, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Re- spondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that these allegations be dismissed. Thereafter,- the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief; the Respondent filed an answering brief and cross-exceptions. 154 NLRB No. 61. HAPPY FOOD CENTER, INC. 703 Pursuant to the provisions of 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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. 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 Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions, briefs, and the entire rec- ord in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted below. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to rehire employee Robert Conaty. Conaty had been employed as a sacker at the Respondent's store until the week ending August 28, 1964. Thereafter, he sought to return to work. Gary Priddy, the Respond- ent's grocery manager, asked Conaty if he had signed a union card. When Conaty replied that he had, Priddy told him that the Re- spondent didn't need him. In view of the Respondent's demonstrated union animus, the absence of evidence that no job vacancy existed when Conaity applied for reemployment, and the fact that 'Conaty was rejected only after admitting his adherence to the Union upon questioning directed to that matter alone, we are convinced that the Respondent's refusal to give Conaty employment was for a dis- criminatory reason, in violation of the Act. To remedy the Respondent's unfair labor practice against Conaty, who was a summer student employee, we shall not require the Re- spondent to reinstate him, as the record shows that he would have returned to school after Labor Day, 1964. However, we shall order the Respondent make Conaty whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the aforesaid discrimination, by payment to him of a sum of money which he would have earned from the date of the refusal to employ him to the date he would have returned to school, less his net earnings, if any, during this period. Backpay shall be computed with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum on a quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We hereby delete the Trial Examiner' s conclusion of law No. 3, renumber No. 2 to No. 3, and snake the following new conclusions of law : 2. By refusing to employ Robert Conaty because of his member- ship in or activities in behalf of the Union, the Respondent has 704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) or 8 (a) (3) of the Act with respect to employees Esther Trease Langton , James Vaughn, and John Erk. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and orders that the Respondent, Happy Food Center, Inc., Independence, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified : 1. Add the following as paragraph 1(c) to the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, the present paragraph 1(c) being renumbered 1(d): "(c) Refusing to employ applicants because of their membership in or activities in behalf of the Union or any other labor organization." 2. Add the following as paragraphs 2(a) and (b) to the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, the present paragraph 2(a) being renumbered 2(c) : "(a) Make whole Robert Conaty for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in this Decision. "(b) 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 to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Decision." 3 Add the following paragraph after the second indented para- graph of the Appendix i attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision: WE WILL NOT refuse to employ applicants because of their membership in or activities in behalf of the Union or any other labor organization. 4. Add the following paragraph as the last indented paragraph of the aforesaid Appendix : WE WILL make Robert Conaty whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against him. 1 The telephone number for Region 17 , appearing at the bottom of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended to read : Telephone No. 221-2732. HAPPY FOOD CENTER, INC. 705 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed on October 16 and December 9, 1964, by Retail Store Employ- ees Union Local 782, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, a complaint dated Jan- uary 6, 1965, was duly issued alleging that Happy Food Center, Inc., herein called the Respondent or the Company, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(I), (3 ), and (5 ) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act . The com- plaint, as amended by an order dated January 18, 1965, in substance , alleges that the Respondent on various days in August 1964 discharged Esther Trease Langton, John Erk, James Vaughn , and Robert Conaty because of their support of and activity on behalf of the Union, that since August 10, 1964, Respondent has unlawfully refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of the employees in an appropriate unit, and that by reason of the aforesaid acts and other conduct set forth in the complaint Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The Respondent duly filed an answer to the complaint herein which, as amended at the hearing , gener- ally denies that it has engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices . A hearing in this proceeding was held before Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman at Kansas City, Missouri, on March 2 and 3, 1965. Thereafter , briefs were duly filed by the General Counsel and by the Respondent. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Respondent, a Missouri corporation, operates a store at 42d and Noland Road, Independence , Missouri, where it sells at retail groceries and related products. Respondent's annual sales are in excess of $500,000 and, in the course and conduct of its business, Respondent annually purchases and receives at its store from points outside the State of Missouri merchandise valued at in excess of $100,000. Respond- ent admits, and I find, that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union, a voluntary association charted by the Retail Clerks International Association, accepts as members persons who work as employees in retail grocery establishments and, among other of its activities, engages in collective bargaining and represents employees in connection with grievances . I find that the Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. IH. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondent admits that, as alleged in the complaint , all regular and regular part- time grocery department employees at its store , excluding meat department, office clerical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. The employees within this unit fall into three general classifications ; namely, stockers , checkers, and sackers . Stockers arrange the merchandise on the shelves in the store ; checkers wait on the trade and act as cashiers ; and sackers, who for the most part are students who work part time, place the customers' purchases in paper bags, carry such bags to customers ' automobiles, and do other menial tasks. The principals of the Company are William Raymond Rosser, who owns 98 percent of the outstanding shares of its stock, and his father, William E. Rosser, who owns the balance . The latter has an additional financial stake in the Company as the endorser for his son of a banknote in a substantial amount. Although Rosser, Senior, in his testimony was evasive with respect to, and attempted to minimize, his authority, nevertheless, I find that he exercises managerial authority on behalf of the Company and more specifically as concerns the issues in this case has charge of the Company's personnel. In addition to the Rossers, the employees in the above-described unit are supervised by Grocery Manager Gary Priddy. The events with which this proceeding is concerned are related to the Union's organizational campaign among the Company's employees which began about August 6, 1964, when the Union's business agent, Charles R. Spangler, at the invitation of Elgean Cole, met with her and Rebecca Jennings and Esther Trease 206-446-66-vol. 154-46 706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Langton at Cole's home. The three women, all of whom were employed as checkers by the Company, signed union authorization cards at that meeting. Thereafter, Cole and Langton discussed the possibility of union representation with other employees and Cole advised them of arrangements she had made for Spangler to be in the vicinity of the store in order that they could sign union cards. In accordance with such arrangements a number of employees signed union cards on August 8, 1964. Shortly thereafter the Union made several demands for recognition upon the Com- pany. On August 10, 1964, according to William E. Rosser, one of the clerks in the store gave him a somewhat garbled message about "the Retail Clerks Union wanting us to join their organization" or about Union Business Representative Harry Hess requesting a meeting. Rosser sent a telegram to the Union that day advising that the Company "will have to set meeting at later date preferably around latter part of month ...." Additional demands for recognition were made upon the Company on August 12, 19, and 25, 1964. The Company's refusal to accede to these demands is the basis for the alleged violations of Section 8(a)(5) in this case. The threshold question is whether as of about August 10, 1964, when the Union first made its demand for recognition, it had authorization cards from a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit i General Counsel introduced in evidence authorization cards signed by the following 10 employees on the dates set forth along- side their respective names: Name Classification Date Mike Bullock------------------- Sacker -------- 8/8/64 Elgean Cole-------------------- Checker ------- 8/6/64 Robert Comity------------------ Sacker -------- 8/8/64 Lawrence Dickstein------------- ----- do -_-----_ 8/9/64 John Erk------------------------ ----- do -------- 8/8/64 Marvin Grilev------------------ -----do-------- 8/9/64 Rebecca Jennings--------------- Checker ------- 8/6/64 William (Ronald) Lockert------- Stocker ------- 8/8/64 Esther Trease Langton ---------- Checker ------- 8/6/64 James Vaughn------------------ Sacker -------- 8/8/64 General Counsel contends that at the relevant times only the following eight addi- tional employees were included in the appropriate unit, none of whom had signed authorization cards: Name Classification John Dean 2--- --------------------- Sacker James Hughes Do. Gerland McKenzie--__ Stocker. Betty McMillian 3----------------- Do. Richard Mueller Do. Wayne Phillips- Sacker Dale Wilson Stocker. Delores Wilson ---------- ----------- Checker. Respondent contends that Marcel Flippin and Julia Chapman who were employed as checkers during the relevant times should also be included in the unit, while Gen- 1 The only evidence of union majority adduced on behalf of the General Counsel are authorization cards 2 John Dean who was still in the employ of the Company on the date of hearing was hired in September 1963 He was absent from work between August 7 and 28, 1964. Although Priddy testified that during this period Dean was "[ulnemployed He wasn't with us," General Counsel takes the position that lie is included in the unit. I agree with the General Counsel that, despite Priddy's testimony, Dean's absence from work for 3 weeks during the summer of 1964 alone is not a sufficient basis for excluding him from the unit. 3 Although Priddy testified that Betty McMillian "was not a checker and could not be considered a real stocker either," there is no dispute that she is included in the unit HAPPY FOOD CENTER, INC. 707 eral Counsel argues that they are supervisors and therefore should be excluded. Gen- eral Counsel adduced no testimony whatsoever as to any instance when either Flippin or Chapman had exercised any supervisory function. He argues that when Priddy and the Rossers were absent from the store Flippin and Chapman were in charge. But Respondent adduced evidence through the testimony of Priddy and William E. Rosser that at all times when the store is open Priddy or one of the Rossers is in the store. General Counsel points to testimony by John Erk and James Vaughn as contradicting Priddy and Rosser in this respect. Erk testified that on one par- ticular evening none of the three were in the store However, on cross-examina- tion he acknowledged that, although at the same time in question he had not seen any of the three, he had no way of knowing whether or not one of them was somewhere out of his sight in the store. Vaughn's testimony to which General Counsel adverts is similarly inconclusive. I find, therefore, that General Counsel has failed to prove not only that Flippin and Chapman had ever been advised that they were in charge of the store in the absence of Priddy and the Rossers but also that an occasion ever arose when all three were absent. General Counsel argues that Flippin and Chapman had authority to recommend the hire and discharge of employ- ees. However, at most, the testimony shows that while Priddy might listen to their recommendations when and if he hired or discharged any employee he exercised his independent judgment and neither Flippin's nor Chapman's recommendations carried effective weight.4 General Counsel further argues that Flippin "was the head cashier who had keys to the office and to the cash drawer. She runs the front end of the store for Mr. Priddy, the manager." Assuming that the record contains evidence to such effect, these factors, which do not relate to the direction or supervision of other employees, are not indicia of supervisory authority within the definition of Section 2(11) of the Act. Accordingly, I find that both Flippin and Chapman were included within the unit during the relevant times. In his brief General Counsel does not discuss John Burke who was employed as a sacker from July 31 to September 11, 1964. Burke's employment experience with the Company during the critical period was as extensive as that of Dickstein and Lockert, so that if the latter two are properly included in the unit then Burke also should be included. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the Union had obtained authorization cards from only 10 employees out of a unit of 21 and therefore did not represent a majority at the times relevant hereto .5 Accordingly, Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to recognize the Union as the majority representative of its employees within the above-described appropriate unit. Respondent was opposed to the Union and an issue in this case is whether the Company's opposition assumed a character and nature as to unlawfully infringe upon its employees' statutory rights. Respondent became aware of the organizational effort among its employees on August 10, 1964. Thereafter, Respondent questioned various employees about their union interest and in at least one instance in a manner intended to ridicule union supporters. Thus, John Dean testified that in August 1964 Priddy asked him if he had signed a union card mentioning that someone had said that he had signed such card, and Dean replied that he had not. Sometime thereafter Rosser 6 asked Dean to sign a paper which would indicate whether he had signed or would like to sign a union card and which asked "if the main reason you didn't sign a union card was because you didn't take a bath on Saturday night." Rebecca Jennings, who signed a union card on August 6, 1964, testified that about August 12 Rosser asked her if she had signed a union card and she denied that she had. She also testified that about a week after Esther Trease Langton had been laid off Priddy asked her if she knew whether Esther had signed a card. 4 General Counsel did not prove that at any time Flippin or Chapman had been advised that they had authority to recommend the hire or discharge of employees and did not adduce evidence as to a single specific instance where either had made any such recom- mendation. Neither Flippin nor Chapman were witnesses and General Counsel's posi- tion is based almost entirely on the testimony of Priddy. I do not find from this testi- mony evidence sufficient to establish the supervisory status of Flippin or Chapman I find no credible weight can be given to Vaughn's testimony that Flippin was "kind of the head clerk, the leader in the front " Significantly, none of the checkers who testified at the hearing identified Flippin or Chapman as their supervisor 5In reaching the foregoing conclusion I have not considered various arguments advanced by Respondent concerning inclusions and exclusions from the appropriate unit Among other things I have not considered is whether Dorothy Jean Andrews and Kenneth Wayne Johnson should be included in the unit and whether students who work part time for the Company should be excluded 6 All reference hereinafter to Rosser are to William E. Rosser 708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Elgean Cole, who was responsible for the initiation of the organizational activity among Respondent's employees, testified that between August 20 and 27, 1964, she began a conversation with Priddy about the Union. She asked Priddy if he knew who had signed union cards and Priddy said he did not, but he was going to find out. Priddy also said to her "that if he had to hire 150 people to keep the union out, he would, that they couldn't have the union." About a week later Cole initiated a con- versation with Rosser about the Union. According to Cole, "I told Mr. Rosser that there had been a union man at my house who wanted me to sign a card, and he told me not to sign it, that they were playing with the union, and he would let me know how they came out." Again, about 3 weeks later, Cole began a conversation with Rosser concerning the Union. She asked him if he had found out any more about the Union. Rosser replied that "he had an idea of who had signed cards" and "that anyone that he knew of that was participating, they'd have to let them go, something to that effect." James Vaughn testified that in August 1964, Rosser asked him if he had signed a union card. After Vaughn acknowledged that he had, Rosser remarked, "You didn't plan on working here long, did you?" Vaughn further testified that Rosser also asked him if anybody else had joined the Union and to Vaughn's response that he thought some others had joined Rosser remarked that "they would be fired for joining the union." Later the same day, as Vaughn was passing Rosser in the store, the latter said to him, "By the way, better have your union dues ready Friday ... It'll be $50." I find that foregoing instances of interrogation, in the context of the direct and veiled threats to discharge union supporters, constitued unlawful infringements upon the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act and that such interrogation and the threats to discharge employees constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.7 The complaint also alleged that Respondent discriminatorily discharged four employees. One of the alleged discriminatees is Robert Conaty, who did not appear as a witness at the hearing. The only evidence in the case concerning the alleged termination of Conaty is the followin-, testimony given by John Dean. Q. Do you know Bob Conaty? A. Yes, I do. Q. Did he work with you? A. Yes, he did. Q. (By Mr. FRISCH.) Was Bob Conaty absent from work? A. Yes, he was. Q. Did he come back after his absence? A. Yes, he did. Q. Were you present when he had a talk with Gary Priddy after his absence? A. Yes, I was. * * * * * * * Q. (By Mr. FRISCH.) Can you tell me what was said at that time? A. He asked Mr. Priddy if he could have his job back. Q. What did Priddy say? A. He asked him first if he had signed a union card. Q. What did Conaty say? A. He said yes. Q. What did Mr. Priddy say? A. He said he didn't need him. Absent evidence concerning the nature of Conaty's absence from work, i.e., whether he was on a leave of absence or had been terminated, and absent evidence that a vacancy existed which Conaty was qualified to fill at the time of his alleged request for reemployment, I do not find the quoted testimony by Dean establishes an unlaw- ful discrimination against Conaty. Another alleged discrimination involves Esther Trease Langton. Concerning her alleged discharge, Langton testified that on a Saturday about 3 weeks after she had signed a union card Priddy asked her to remain after work because he wanted to talk to her. According to Langton, Priddy "first sat down by the side of the cash register and he pointed his finger at me and said, `Well, it all boils down to you.' He said, 'Your work has been slacking off and your attitude has been poor.' Then he stopped 7 Cannon Electric Company, 151 NLRB 1465. Because I find Priddy was an unreliable witness I do not credit his testimony that he did not interrogate any employees con- cerning their union membership or activities and that he did not threaten any employees with reprisals if they joined or worked on behalf of the Union. HAPPY FOOD CENTER, INC. 709 and I said, `Does this mean that I'm fired ?' He said, `You can take it any way you like."' Although not entirely clear from the record , it appears that Langton did not thereafter report for work . I find that in the described circumstances , Langton voluntarily quit her employment and was not discharged . Furthermore, Rebecca Jennings testified that a week later Priddy asked her if she knew whether Langton had signed a union card. Thus , not only is there no direct evidence that Priddy or any other principal of the Company knew that Langton had signed a union card at the time of the above-described conversation, but Jennings' testimony reflects the fact that a week later they were still uncertain of the fact. Finally, there is the question concerning the terminations of James Vaughn and John Erk who are high school students who worked part time for the Company as sackers. Both Vaughn and Erk testified at the hearings and in various respects their testimony was contradictory. However, I find that the following is substantially what occurred. On a Friday night in late August or early September 1964, Vaughn and Erk were outside the store taking a break . Earl Stone 8 came out and told the two to get busy. Later the same evening Stone asked Vaughn and Erk whether they had plans for the next day and after they said they did not, Stone made a remark to the effect that you will not be working here long anyway which the two boys interpreted as notice of discharge .9 The next day they returned to the store and asked Priddy for their pay. Priddy inquired why they wanted to be paid. (Normally the employees are paid at the close of business on Saturday.) They replied that they had been fired the previous evening. They did not tell Priddy who had discharged them or why they had been discharged. Priddy responded that he did not know anything about the matter. The boys did not ask whether they might return to work and Priddy did not tell them they might do so. I find that General Counsel has not proved that Respondent had discriminatorily discharged Vaughn and Erk . First, Stone had no authority to discharge the boys and no evidence was adduced (other than the unfounded and unsupported statement by Vaughn that Stone was an assistant man- ager) to establish that either Vaughn or Erk had any reasonable basis for believing that Stone had such authority. Erk specifically testified that no one had ever advised him that Stone was his supervisor or boss. Second, on the next day when they returned to the store and discovered that Priddy did not know they had been dis- charged they made no effort to ascertain whether they might return to work but only asked for their pay.10 Third, even taking into account the remark Rosser made to Vaughn several weeks earlier, General Counsel has not established by the necessary preponderance of the evidence that the Company was discriminatorily disposed toward Vaughn and Erk because they had signed union cards. Accordingly, I find that General Counsel has not proved that the Company discharged Vaughn and Erk or that their alleged discharges were in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 8 At the time in question Earl Stone , who Is older than Vaughn and Erk, was working part time for the Company . Vaughn testified that Stone was an assistant manager. Vaughn is mistaken in his opinion that Stone held such position and I find that Gen- eral Counsel has not proved that Stone was a supervisor or occupied such position with the Company that the Respondent can be held responsible for his conduct. 90n cross-examination Vaughn testified that Stone's statement was, "Tonight's your last night anyway " In view of the fact that Vaughn and Erk were supposed to and did return to high school on the following Monday, it is questionable whether Vaughn and Erk were justified In construing the quoted remark as a notification of discharge rather than merely as a statement by Stone to indicate that their supposed derelictions required no disciplinary action because they would be quitting their jobs any way. 101 do not consider Priddy 's failure to take the initiative and advise Vaughn and Erk that they were not discharged as a ratification of Stone's purported act in discharging them. Furthermore, had Stone discharged the two boys it appears from the record that It was because they were shirking their work. There is no evidence that Stone had any knowledge that the boys had signed union cards or that he was hostile toward the Union. The General Counsel Introduced in evidence the following testimony given by Priddy in a prior representation proceeding: Q. And John Erk is in that same category , I think that is what you testified to? A. Yes, One of the main reasons we let him go is because his language around customers was a little bit harsh Q. Did you fire him? A. Yes, we did. Accepting the foregoing as an admission It does not establish that Erk was discharged for any reason relating to his union activity. 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con- nection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and 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 has engaged in unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By coercively interrogating its employees regarding their union membership or their knowledge of the union membership of others and by threatening its employees with loss of employment to discourage their affiliation with or support of any labor organization , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act. 3. Respondent has not engaged in any violations of the Act by reason of conduct alleged in the complaint to have constituted unfair labor practices except insofar as such conduct has been found heremabove to have violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Happy Food Center , Inc, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating its employees regarding their union membership or their knowledge of the union membership of others. (b) Threatening its employees with loss of employment to discourage their affilia- tion with or support of any labor organization. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist Retail Store Employees Union Local 782, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Post at its store in Independence , Missouri, the attached notice marked "Appendix." ii Copies of such notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 17, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent , be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, whitin 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.iz n In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the fiords "the Recommended Order of it Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further eient that the P.oaid'. Order is enforced by -a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the woids "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order". ' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read* "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 daps from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." HEMISPHERE PROGRESSIVE CORP., ETC. 711 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 interrogate our employees regarding their union membeship or their knowledge of the union membership of others. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with the loss of employment to discourage their affiliation with or support of any labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Retail Store Employees Local 782, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. HAPPY FOOD CENTER, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By'---------------------------------I--------- (Representative) (Title) 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 provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1200 Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone Baltimore 1-7000, Extension 2733. Hemisphere Progressive Corp., Hemisphere Press, Inc. and Local 1, Amalgamated Lithographers of America Hemisphere Progressive Corp ., Hemisphere Press, Inc., Tru-Fit Offset Plate Corp. and Local 1, Amalgamated Lithographers of America and N.Y. Printing Pressmen's Union No. 51, I.P.P. & A.U. of N.A., AFL-CIO, N.Y. Press Assistants' Union No. 23, I.P.P. & A.U. of N.A., AFL- CIO, Parties to the Contracts. Cases Nos. 2-CA-9860 and 2-CA-10089. August 27, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On June 8, 1965, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to these allegations. Thereafter, Respondents filed excep- tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions with a supporting brief. 154 NLRB No. 64.