Marsh Village Pantries, Inc.

MARSH VILLAGE PANTRIES. INC. Marsh Village Pantries, Inc. and Retail Clerks Local 25, chartered by Retail Clerks International Associ- ation, AFLCIO. Case 25-CA-8785 May 24, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY. AND TRUESDAI F On January 13, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Claude R. Wolfe issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed a reply brief to Respondent's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and 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 Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Marsh Village Pantries. Inc., Yorktown, Indiana, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made h, the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established polics not to oser- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibilil, unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry W'all Products, Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A 3, 1951). We have carefull5 examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings tion 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by interrogating 2 employees about their union activities. warning employees that their hours would be cut if they continued in their union activities, threatening em- ployees with discharge or other reprisals because of union activities, giving the employees the impression of surveil- lance of their union activities, and by soliciting grievances from its employees and giving said employees the impres- sion that the grievances would be adjusted if the employees refrain from union activities. Respondent denies the com- mission of any' unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, and after care- ful consideration of the parties able post-trial briefs. I make the following: FINDINGS OF F :CT I RFSPONDFNTIS Bt SINESS Respondent is. and has been at all times material to this case, an Indiana corporation with principal office and place of business at Yorktown, Indiana, and with 11 retail convenience grocers stores in the Lafayette, Indiana, area. where Respondent is engaged in the retail sale of groceries and related items. During the 12 months preceding the is- suance of the complaint, a representative period, Respon- dent sold and distributed products with a gross value ex- ceeding $500,000. During the same period of time, Respondent purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,00() which were transported directly to its Lafayette. Indiana, stores directly from States other than the State of Indiana. Respondent is now. and has been at all times ma- terial. an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11 THE LABOR OR(;,NIZAIION Retail Clerks Local 24. chartered by Retail Clerks Inter- national Association, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is and has been at all times material herein a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE CLAUDE R. WOLFE, Administrative Law Judge: This case came to hearing before me at Lafayette, Indiana, on Au- gust 26, 1977, pursuant to a complaint issued May 31. 1977, and charges and amended charges timely filed on March 29 and April 1, 197 7.1 The complaint, amended at the hearing, alleges that Marsh Village Pantries, Inc., herein called the Employer or Respondent, violated Sec- All dates herein refer to 1977 unless specifically indicated otherwise 2 At hearing. I denied General ( ounsels miotion to amend par 5h) of the complaint hs substituting the date March 2, 1977. for the date of Mlarch 7. 1977, to reflect the ecidence adduced bh General Counsel as to when Ihe interrogation alleged in that paragraph occurred. Although I ad.ised the parties al the time that I would consider the alleged interrogation as part and parcel of a consersation that is alleged In other paragraphs of the colm- plaint ito contain Ither unlawful statements bs Superxlsor Tons I .ewi. I am convinced. after careful consideration of the matter. including the fact that the alleged Interrogation was thoroughlk litigated h' all parties, that ms ruling was hast, and in error General C ounsel's motion amounted to no more than a proper motion to coinform the pleadings to the proof insofar as a minor Vsariation in dates existed. and I now reserse m self iua por,nte and grant the mition Itl amend par 5(h) h siuhstitutirn the date Mlarch 2 for March 7 236 NLRB No. 48 323 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND RELEVANI SURROUNDING EVENTS3 On February 6, Darrell Mitchell went to Store 430 and solicited Marjorie Hanna to sign an authorization card for the Union. She signed the card and returned it to him on that date. Hanna was called in to work at Store 463 on February 21. She had previously received notice of a union meeting on February 22, for the Respondent's employees, and invited three employees to the meeting while she was at work on February 21. The store manager, Larry Miller, was not present at the store when Hanna issued her invita- tions. Hanna attended the February 22 meeting. In mid-February Respondent received a letter from the Union demanding recognition for an 11 store bargaining unit.4 Thereafter the Union filed a petition for an election in Case 25-RC-6544, and, after a hearing conducted thereon on March 2, the Regional Director for Region 25 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in a unit of all full and part-time employees at Respondent's Lafayette area stores on March 25. 5 It appears that the election was still pending at the time of the hearing before me. Following receipt of the Union's demand, the Employer conducted a series of three meetings with its supervisory personnel with respect to how they should conduct them- selves during the union campaign. The first meeting was held on February 16, the second on March I or 2, and the third at a later date unrevealed in the record. The parties agreed that the representation hearing was held on March 2, but the record is somewhat confusing as to when certain alleged conversations between Hanna and Store Manager Tony Lewis happened. Both Lewis and Hanna agree that the conversation between them, being litigated herein, hap- pened on March 2. Lewis states that he was at a March meeting, on March 1, and then talked to Hanna on the next day. Hlowever, Kelley who conducted the meetings, after first testifying that there was a meeting on March 1, corrected himself and testified that the meeting was actual- ly in the evening after the representation case hearing, which would have been March 2. Kelley places Lewis at that March 2 meeting. In my view, whether or not the meeting with supervision occurred on March I or 2, and whether or not the conversation between Lewis and Hanna occurred on March 2 or 3. is of little significance in the case. It is sufficient to note that Hanna and Lewis agree that there was a meeting and that it was on March 2. l he 3 'he facts set forth herein .ire based on a synthesis oIf the credited aspects of the teslimon Is of ;illI itnesses, the exhihits. and careful consideraiton of the logical consistentcy iand inherent probhahilty of the facts ftound Al- though I may riot, in the course If the D)ecision, advert to all of the 1tccrd testimnon? or do umentiary evidelce, It has been carefully weighed iand con- sidered and to the extent that testinmony or other ecidence not mentioned herein might appear to contradict the findings of fact, that evidence hais not been disregarded bat has been rejected as incredible. lacking in pr.haillte worth, surplusage. o, irrelevant 4 Kenneth Kelley. the Firiiplo>er's director of warehousing and transpor- tatioln, onl) testified that he received this letter some time around the middle of February, but Respondent places the date or receipt as February 8 in its post-trial brief Although the record contains no evidence as to the d ate if receipt othIer than Kelley's generalized estimate. I see rio reilson to doubt the February S receipt date acknowledged by Respondent. '1'here are approlximatels 55 eCplosees in the unit fould. fact that it may have been on March 3 would not affect the outcome of this case, and the allegations in the complaint to the effect that the allegedly unlawful statements of Lewis occurred on March 2 would be sufficient even if the conduct complained of occurred on March 3. Respondent concedes, in its post-trial brief, that Hanna engaged in open and conspicuous union activity including signing a union card at work, discussing the Union openly at her work place, exhibiting a union letter to several em- ployees, and using the Company's telephone to solicit at- tendance at a union meeting. In my opinion, this overt activity would in and of itself support a fair inference that Respondent was well aware of Hanna's union activities. Furthermore, although the testimony of Hanna's husband is somewhat suspect because it appears that he left the Company's employment involuntarily, he testified without contradiction, and I credit him on this, that while he was bowling with Respondent's Store Manager Larry Miller in February he told Miller that there was talk about getting a union in and Hanna was going to stick around and vote for it. Respondent therefore had direct knowledge, through its supervisor and agent, Miller, of Hann's union sympathies in February. With respect to the March 2 (or 3) conversa- tion she had with Store Manager Lewis, Hanna testified that she reported to work at Store 430 just before I p.m. She and Lewis then fell into a conversation inside the back- room wherein he told her that he had gone to a meeting where her name had been mentioned, and that Larry Miller had told Porter Eckerty, director of the Employer's Village Pantry division, that Hanna had been talking in favor of the Union and trying to get people to join, and that she also planned on quitting but had decided to stay because they were going to get a union. Lewis also alleg- edly told her that District Manager Jim Brown had asked him to cut her hours, or do something of the sort, so that she would quit, but that he had refused to do so. Lewis assured her that he would not cut her hours or do anything against her. Lewis further told her that he told Brown and Area Supervisor Carroll Bates that she was a good employ- ee and he did not see doing that to her, whereupon Brown got angry. Lewis then cautioned her that there was a possi- bility that the Company would think of some other way to get rid of her and that she should be very careful while she was at work. Hanna says that she retorted to Lewis that he did not have to worry about her because she had never done anything against company policy and he would not have to worry about "them" getting her on anything. She further testified that Lewis asked her if she had signed a union card. After she told him that she did, he asked if anybody else had signed any. She answered affirmatively and he then asked how many, to which she replied that everyone had. His final question to her was whether this activity was because of anything that he had done. She replied that it was not directed against him personally. Hanna claims that she and Lewis are friends and that the conversation on March 2 was a friendly conversation. She also testified that she did not feel threatened by Lewis dur- ing the conversation of March 2, but considered that he was telling her those things for her own good. Lewis testified that he attended the meeting of manage- ment held on March 1, and was there told about things 324 MARSH VIILLAGE PANTRIES. INC. that managers should and should not do as far as the Union was concerned. He acknowledges that he had a con- versation with Hanna on March 2 at Store 430. His version is that he did not ask her whether she had signed a card and believes that she volunteered the information. He fur- ther denies that Brown either asked him to cut her hours so that she would quit or that he told her that. He also denies telling her that anyone in higher management was out to get her because of her union activities. On cross-examina- tion, Lewis added that he told Hanna the things that he could not do, but that he does not remember much else that happened at the supervisor's meeting, other than the instructions on how managers should conduct themselves, or he would have told her about it. His testimony does not purport to be a recitation of all of the conversation on March 2, but consists primarily of bare denials of matters testified to by Hanna as occurring therein. I credit Hanna's version of the March 2 conversation over that of Lewis because she was more complete, natural. and forthright in her testimony. Lewis was much more un- certain and tentative in his testimony than Hanna, and was not as impressive as she on the basis of comparative de- meanor on the witness stand. I would also note that at the time of her testimony Hanna was still employed by Re- spondent and was figuratively treading on thin ice when she testified contrary to Lewis, inasmuch as Respondent had the power to exert day-to-day pressure on her in the assignment and performance of her work. Crediting Hanna's version of the conversation, as I do. I am persuaded that Lewis' conduct in relating to her that she was known by management to be a union activist and that management had asked him to take steps, including cutting her hours, to persuade her to quit, could not help but convey to her that Respondent was hostile to her union activities and planned to take measures to curtail it. These statements coupled with Lewis' warning to her that she should be very careful in the way that she conducted her- self clearly constitute a threat of employer retaliation if she persisted in her union activities. This is in clear violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as is l ewis' interrogation with respect to the signing of union cards, and I so find. I do not make any findings as to whether or not the management officials named by Lewis in his conversation with Hanna in fact made the statements that he attributed to them, nor need I do so. It is sufficient that Lewis so reported. Hanna was under no obligation to investigate the truth or falsity of Lewis' statements and was entitled to rely on his repre- sentations as an agent of management. Indeed. their friendly relationship and Lewis' cautions to her were fac- tors tending to convince her of the verity of his statements. In any event, all that must be proved for the C'ompany to be liable for I ewis' conduct is that he was a supervisor. which Respondent admits, because interrogations. wa:mn- ings, and threats made by an? supervisor are imputable to the Employer. As Respondent points out, the union activities of Hanna were carried on in the open at her place of employment, and her husband took pains to specifically inform the Re- spondent's agent, Miller, of his wife's intention to vote for the Union. Thus, there was no need for surveillance to ascertain Hanna's union sympathies or activities. and I find nothing in the record to support the complaint allega- tion that Respondent gave its employees the impression of surveillance of their union activities. Accordingly, I shall recommend that allegation of the complaint be dismissed. That Lewis related to Hanna that Miller had reported to higher management on her union activities should have come as no surprise to her, and certainly was no surprise to her husband who had himself given the information to Miller. In support of the allegation that David Redden, who was the retail personnel manager for Respondent at the time, solicited grievances on March 10, and at the same time gave employees the impression that grievances would be adjusted if they refrained from union activities, the Gener- al Counsel relies solely on the uncontradicted testimony of Hanna. According to her testimony, Hanna was asked to come into work on March 10 by Tony Lewis. He gave her no reason at the time. This failure to state a reason does not strike me as being particularly unusual because Hanna was working on a part-time basis and testified to a previous occasion when she was called into work by another manag- er at another store without notice because her services were needed. After she arrived to work at Store 430, Redden came to the store. After some preliminary conversation with L ewis, about which there is no testimony, Redden asked her if she was Hanna and introduced himself. He then told her that he would like to talk to her and asked where the best place might be. She directed him to the back office where they sat and talked without others present. Prior to this meeting with Redden. Hanna had had a prob- lem getting paid for work she performed on February 21 at Store 463 because the manager had not properly turned in her time on the weeks payroll. Hanna called Larry Miller. the manager of Store 463, to remind him to send in her time, but he told her that he had already filled out his payroll and that she would have to remind him the follow- ing week. Instead of doing that, she placed her name stick- er on a blank timecard. entered the time that she worked on the card. signed it and put it in the timecard slot at Store 463. Hanna mentioned the matter to Lewis who then contacted ('arroll Bates. the district supervisor, about the matter. Bates called Miller to see if he had sent the time in and received the reply that he had not. Bates then instruct- ed [ ewis to put llanna's time worked at Store 463 on the timecard at Store 430., and Bates himself called personnel and reported the matter. Although Hanna's testimony is somewhat disjointed in sonme respects, I conclude from it that she related all of the foregoing to Redden after he first inquired as to why she had not gotten paid. After receiving this information. Redden asked her if she had had any other problems "in this sense," which I construe to mean of a type relating to pay. Hanna asked him if he wanted her to tell him everything from when she first started with Re- spondent, and started to do so when he gave her an affir mative answer. She told Redden about several occasions on which the employees at Store 463 had not received pas for overtime work because the manager had erased it from the timecard. Redden's question was, "Why didn't you let us know at Personn!?e lIanna answered that matters like this had been brought to the attention of Bates and Brown and that she had waritten Brown a letter telling him about 325 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD some things that Miller had done. Redden stated that the personnel office had never received anything of this sort against Miller, and advised her that when she had not re- ceived any response from Brown she should have reported it to personnel where it would have been taken care of right away. He also asked her how much she felt that the Com- pany owed her, but she told him that she did not have any idea. Since she was obviously well aware of how much the Company owed her for the work on February 21, as Red- den must also have been, I am persuaded that this question was directed to how much she felt that the Company owed her for overtime that she had not been paid for at Store 463. After Hanna concluded her recitation of complaints, as set forth above, Redden asked her why she had staved with the Company if she felt the way she did. She replied that she needed the work and she liked working in grocer- ies. Redden concluded the conversation by telling her that if she had any other problems to be sure and let him know and he would take care of them right away. In addition to the foregoing, Hanna relates that while she was reciting her pay problems Redden interjected that the Company did not think that she needed any outside help with her problems. There is no indication by Hanna that there was any preamble to this statement, or any re- sponse by her, or further discussions by Redden of it. Ac- cording to Hanna, sometime during this meeting with Red- den she told him what Lewis had told her on March 2, whereupon Redden told her that he had been at that meet- ing and that whoever told her that was not telling her the truth and that her name was not brought up at that meet- ing. After Redden left, Hanna had another conversation with Lewis wherein she asked him if he had known that Redden was coming. She first testified that Lewis replied that he had known because Redden was coming to visit some of the stores. Hanna then told Lewis that she had told Red- den a few things and asked if Lewis thought it would do any good, to which he responded it never had so he did not know why it would now. Hanna credibly testified without contradiction that Lewis told her that Redden was going to come and talk to some of the stores and some of the em- ployees about the union. I am persuaded from the context of the conversation that Redden's initial questions of Hanna regarding her problems related to the pay problem, which she herself had raised, and which had eventually wended it's way to his office. I note that the conversation occurred just over 2 weeks after the February 21 pay problem arose, but it ap- pears from Hanna's testimony that some of this time was consumed in seeking relief through self-help by making out her own timecard, subsequent inquiries to Lewis about the problems, and other intermediate action by management before forwarding the matter to the personnel division. While I agree with Respondent that Redden's comment to Hanna that he did not think she needed any outside help with respect to her problem is ambiguous and susceptible of different interpretations, I note that ambiguities are con- strued against the one who utters them, absent some rea- sonable explanation. Although Respondent makes an able argument that the reference may have been to the wage and hour division of the Department of Labor inasmuch as Hanna's complaint amounted to a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, I note that Respondent adduced no evidence that it was concerned about the Fair Labor Stan- dards Act when Redden went to talk to Hanna. Respon- dent's argument is based on a self-constructed hypothesis not supported by the evidence. Redden's statement is just as susceptible of the meaning that Hanna did not need the help of the Union in resolving her problem. Considering the fact that there was a current organizational campaign at the time, to which the Respondent was admittedly op- posed, I am persuaded that it is more probable on the basis of the evidence before me that Redden's comment was meant to refer to help Hanna might secure from the Union. I am struck by Hanna's credible and uncontradicted narrative that Redden, after asking her to relate any pay problems she had experienced throughout her employment and after receiving her answer, asked her why she was still with the Company if she felt that way about it. I find noth- ing in her testimony as to what she told him that would indicate that her general dissatisfaction with employment with the Company was so great as to warrant Redden's question, and I view his question as a subtle invitation to leave Respondent's employment if she was dissatisfied with it. Although I do not believe that this invitation to leave proves the truth of Lewis' story to Hanna on March 2 as to what had been said about her at the immediately preceding management meeting, it could not help but convey to Han- na, particularly in view of Lewis' prior statement on March 2, that the Company was indeed trying to get rid of her. Considering the facts that Redden had been employed by Respondent for some 8 years, and prior to his appoint- ment as personnel director for the Employer in April 1977 had served as the retail personnel manager for 3 or 4 years; and the further facts, that Hanna had been employed by Respondent since August 1974, and had never before met Redden, I conclude that his visit to her at Store 430 was out of the ordinary and, as Lewis told her after the meet- ing, for the purpose of talking to her about the Union. I do not think it necessary that General Counsel show that Red- den specifically mentioned the Union during the conversa- tion, because I believe that his statement to Hanna that he did not think she needed any outside help was sufficient to advise her that he did not think that she needed the Union. Furthermore, it appears that Hanna's complaint about the February 21 pay problem was being properly processed through the appropriate Employer channels and there was no necessity for Redden to insert himself into the matter where the District Supervisor Carroll Bates had already made the appropriate arrangements to handle it after he had investigated the circumstances. I also find it most sin- gular that Redden, who at the time was the retail personnel manager with about 99 stores under his direction with re- spect to personnel problems, would issue a personal invita- tion to Hanna to contact him personally if she had any other problems and a personal promise that he would take care of them right away. There is no evidence whatsoever that Redden had ever personally sought out an employee whose problem was already well on the way to being re- solved by subordinate management and then engaged in a lengthy colloquy with that employee about previous prob- lems the employee might have had throughout his or her 326 MARSH VILLAGE PANTRIES, INC. employment. Hanna was known by the Employer to be a union supporter, and I conclude that Redden's statement to her that she should bring any other problem she had to him and that he would personally remedy them was an overt solicitation of grievances and an express promise to remedy said grievances. I view this promise to remedy grievances of a known union adherent occurring in the midst of the union organizational campaign, as an induce- ment to abandon union activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Contrary to Respondent, I do not agree that the message conveyed to Hanna by Lewis, that higher management was seeking her separation from employment and she should be very careful in her conduct at work to avoid this conse- quence, was ever retracted or otherwise rendered uncoer- cive by Respondent. Although Lewis may have been friendly with Hanna, wished her no harm, and assured her that he would take no action against her, he gave her no assurance that his superiors would not take steps to pro- cure her termination. His warning that she should be very careful in order to avoid adverse action by others in man- agement could only serve to emphasize to Hanna that Re- spondent was indeed determined to get rid of her.6 With respect to Respondent's contention that Redden assured Hanna that no adverse action would be taken against her, suffice it to say that the portion of the official record relied on to support this contention only shows that Redden told her that Lewis' report of events at the supervisors' meeting was untrue. This merely left Hanna with a choice of whom to believe, Lewis or Redden, and constitutes neither an unequivocal retraction of the statements reported by Lewis nor an assurance that Respondent would not retaliate against Hanna if she continued in her union activities. That Redden, like Lewis, was apparently friendly in man- ner when talking with Hanna does not establish that the Respondent's attitude toward her union activity was friendly. I have considered the conflicting arguments and sup- porting citations of case law advanced by the parties with respect to the question of whether or not the violations found herein are sufficient to warrant a remedy, and I con- clude and find that applicable precedent ' requires a rem- edy for the interrogation, threat of Employer retaliation for engaging in union activities, and the promise to remedy grievances, all of which I have found to be in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con- clusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Marsh Village Pantries, Inc.. the Respondent, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- As noted before, whether or not Lewis' statements and warnings were true are of no consequence because Hanna had no was iof knowing the truth or falsity of his comments and could reasonabl be expected to take thel r at face value. : Kal-Die Ca.ting Corporation, 221 NtIRB 1068 (1975); (aronao aIrnerwan Taxtles. Inc., 219 NLRB 457 (1975). tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a union organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By asking an employee if she and other employees had signed union authorization cards, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 4. By threatening an employee with loss of her job and other retaliation because of her union activities, Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By soliciting and promising to remedy grievances in order to induce an employee to refrain from union activi- ties. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 6. The unfair labor practices set forth above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. Respondent did not commit any other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. THE REMEDY I shall recommend that Respondent be required to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices found herein and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend that the Respondent post an appro- priate notice to its employees at Store 430, located at 601 Union Street, Lafayette. Indiana. I am persuaded that the Respondent's misconduct, all of which occurred at Store 430 and was directed only to Majorie Hanna, requires a remedy but was not sufficiently pervasive to warrant a re- quirement of posting at all II of the Employer's stores in the Lafayette area. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER The Respondent. Marsh Village Pantries, Inc.. York- town, Indiana, its agents. officers, successors, and assigns. shall. 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Asking employees whether or not they or any other employees have signed union authorization cards. (b) Threatening employees with the loss of job or other retaliation because of their union activities. (C) Promising to remedy grievances of employees in or- der to induce them to refrain from union activities. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining. or coercing an, employee in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the folluwing affirmative action which I find necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Post at its Store 430. 601 Union Street, Lafayette. Indiana. copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- In the event no exceptil n, are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 .of the Rules and Reeulatimmns of the N:!iona! Labhor Relations Board. the findrne coinclusions. and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec 102 48 ,f the Rules and Regulations be adopted bs the Board and hei-me Its findings, cinclusion.s and Order. and all objections thereto shall he de eied avi,led for ill purp.oses 327 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dix." 9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Re- spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous 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, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a l tilted States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National lIabor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals E nforcing an Order of the National L.abor Relltlons Hoard" APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT ask you whether or not you or any other employees have signed authorization cards for Retail Clerks Local 25, chartered by Retail Clerks In- ternational Association, AFL-CIO. WE WILL NOT threaten you with the loss of your job or other reprisals because of your union activities. WE WILL NOT promise to remedy your grievances in order to persuade you to refrain from union activi- ties. WE WILL. NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. MARSH VILLAGE PANTRIES. INC 328