Sears, Roebuck and Co.

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. 491 Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Robert S. Sherman. Case 7-CA-7269 May 18, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On October 21, 1969 , Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued his Decision in the above -entitled proceed- ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices , and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action , as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision . The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom- mended dismissal as to those allegations . Thereafter, the Respondent' filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief , and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. 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 con- nection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam- iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner 's Decision, the exceptions and briefs , and the entire record in this case , and hereby adopts the findings ,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.3 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner , and hereby orders that the Respondent, Sears , Roebuck and Co ., Livonia, Michi- gan, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recom- mended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION SAMUEL M. SINGER , Trial Examiner : This proceeding, with all parties represented , was heard before me in Detroit, Michigan , on various dates between June 23 and July 1 , pursuant to a charge filed April 3 and complaint issued May 27, 1969 .1 The issue litigated was whether or not Respondent , through certain conduct (including interrogations , solicitation of complaints and grievances , and promises to rectify and rectifying com- plaints and grievances) interfered with , restrained, and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be heard and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Briefs were received from Respondent and General Counsel on August 28 . Thereafter I granted Respondent's request to file a reply brief , with leave to General Counsel to submit a like brief. Upon the entire record2 and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT; LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent , a New York corporation , maintains a chain of retail department stores throughout the United States , including the one in Livonia, Michigan , involved in this proceeding . During the representative calendar year 1968, Respondent 's gross volume of business at that store exceeded $500,000 ; within the same period it purchased and there received , directly from outside Michigan , products valued in excess of $100,000. Local 299 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters, -Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind. (the Union here involved ) is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Solicitation of Employee Complaints and Grievances 1. Morale surveys in response to Union 's recognition demand and petition for election ' Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties ' The Respondent contends that the record will not support an infer- ence of unlawful motivation . We do not agree The timing of the Respondent 's conduct, its deviation from past practice , and its repeated references to the Union 's request for recognition preceding the grievance discussions all lead to the conclusion that the Respondent 's conduct was unlawfully motivated and, consequently , violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Tonkawa Refining Co ., 175 NLRB No . 102 para 2. 3 The Employer 's exceptions , in large part , are directed to the credibili- ty findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner 's resolutions as to credibility unless, as is not the case here , a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products , Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C A. 3). Respondent opened its Livonia store in the fall of 1964, under Store Manager Arthur Cone . Sheer is operat- ing superintendent and Sparks head of the shipping and receiving department . The latter supervises 35 of Respondent's approximately 1,200 Livonia employees. On December 31, 1968 , the Union sent a telegram to Store Manager Cone, demanding recognition as exclu- sive bargaining representative for certain employees, including the shipping and receiving employees directly involved here . After Respondent declined recognition, Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein refer to 1969 Transcript corrected by my order on notice dated September 19, 1969. 182 NLRB No. 68 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union on January 13 filed a petition for an election with the Board's Regional Director. Cone testified that "within the hour after receiving the Union's telegram" for recognition he telephoned Respondent's main personnel (Midwestern Territory) office in Chicago to discuss the Union's demand. Cone spoke to the head of that department (Robinson), the assistant employee relations manager (Allen), and the personnel staff assistant (Bennett). According to Cone, "My major concern was with the morale, 'and the request for the recognition at best gave indications that there might be problems there-morale problems-that I need- ed to evaluate." Allen, whom Cone described as especial- ly equipped "in matters of taking 'a reading on the morale," testified that he agreed "to come into the store to assist him [Cone] in communicating with the employees . . . and to advise him of matters related to personnel," indicating that he, too, was "concerned with employee morale" since "a demand for recognition' can mean morale problems in some cases." Allen arrived at the store on January 6 and "talked a great deal with Mr. Cone" and the supervisory staff in his first 5-day visit. He told them that "there were certain actions, as supervisors, that they should guard against," including threats and promises to employees; and he promised to "try to keep the supervisors informed as to what was taking place, and . . . would also commu- nicate what was taking place to the employees in the store." Allen returned to the store the following week (January 13-15), as well as on January 29-31, February 4-7, March•5 or 6, and April 3. Admittedly, he never previous- ly visited the store, explaining , "I was never informed of any morale problem" or other problems.' Allen tes- tified that he would circulate' among employees in the shipping and receiving department, introducing himself' as "Greg Allen out of the Personnel Department from Chicago," inform them of the Union's recognition demand, and ask "how things were going, how they were getting along , or what their job was, what they were doing." According to Allen, "whenever the employee had finished with whatever he wanted to talk about, [he] just thanked him and walked, away," in each case volunteering that he' "was not interested in their feelings about the union . . . one way or another." These conversations, confined to the shipping and receiv- ing employees "amongst" whom the Union claimed recognition,4 took place at or around the employees' work area, close to other working employees. Allen further testified that as a result of these conver- sations he became aware of "a lot of various complaints" since the employees told him "of many problems." According to Allen, he never informed any employee 3 According to Allen, however, during the 4 years he had worked in the Chicago personnel department he had visited many other company stores where "employee morale " was in question , "whether there was a union involved or no union involved " ' The Union's petition for election (Case 7-RC-9254)' indicates that the Union sought recognition on behalf of employees in two additional departments (maintenance and automative) No violation is alleged in regard to any of those employees "that I was there to rectify complaints." nor that he was going to report the grievances. However, he in fact reported these complaints to Cone or Operating Superintendent Sheer, and "in some cases" Cone told him what, if anything, he had done regarding them. Personnel Staff Assistant Bennett of the Midwestern (Chicago) Personnel Department also visited the Livonia store during the weeks of January 4 and 13. He, like Allen, had never previously visited that store. Bennett testified that his supervisor in Chicago (Robinson) "indi- cated to me he felt there were some morale problems in the Livonia, store, and he asked me to visit the store to evaluate if there were morale problems." Like Allen, Bennett expressed the view that "an employee's concern and interest " in unionism "could be" a "reflec- tion of a morale problem"; and he "specifically did not visit the Livonia store in the past because [he] felt there were no serious morale problems." Bennett reported to Robinson his finding "that some of our employees had indicated to me dissatisfaction with some parts of their work,"' He testified that he probably also made a report to Store Manager Cone. 2. Interrogations a. Smith On January 14 or 15, Allen approached Richard Smith, a checker-dockman, at Smith's worktable in the receiving and shipping department. After his usual introductory remarks (that he was from the Chicago Personnel Depart- ment, that the Company had received a Union recogni- tional demand, and that he was not interested in or would not question the employees concerning the Union), Allen asked "how [he] was doing, and if [he] had any problems or complaints about [his] job." Smith answered that he had "some problems," specifically mentioning the Company's failure to promote him during his 5 years of employment, "poor working facilities" (insufficient lighting in the work area and a rough tabletop "that caused him to get splinters"), and low earnings. Allen said that he "would look into it . Find out why [he] hadn't been promoted; and try to get some answers for [him]." A "couple of weeks later" Allen again asked Smith "how [he] was doing" and if he "had any more problems or complaints." He also asked "what kind of job [he] would be interested in" if he were to get "a promotion or transfer" from his position as checker. Smith said that he "would like to go into selling or management or something like that." Allen answered that he "would look into it and find out what he could do about it."" 3 Although at first denying that he reported back to Robinson on his visit to the store , he later stated , "I think I did" and then definitively testified he did , but claimed that he could not recall the "specific problems." " The findings in the above two paragraphs are based primarily on the testimony of Smith , which is in large part consistent with that of Allen . Smith impressed me as an especially credible witness. Unlike Respondent, I do not view Smith 's alleged difficulty in recalling minor details of conversations as substantially affecting his credibility nor the essential accuracy of his testimony on essential matters While SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. Subsequent to the above conversation, Smith was called to Operating Superintendent Sheer's office, where the latter told him that he was under consideration for a stock supervisor position resulting from the transfer of the previous supervisor (Lampman) toa sales position. Smith replied that he "wasn't interested in it" because of no previous stockroom experience and that, he pre- ferred selling. Sheer remarked that he "was surprised to hear that," indicating that the only reason he had not previously been transferred to selling was that he (Smith) had not evidenced such an interest.7 1 The next day, Wearing Apparel Superintendent Friess offered Smith a salesman's position in the women's shoe department, which Smith turned down. In the beginning of May, Sheer offered Smith a sales job in paints, which he accepted." b. Sherman Sherman, a checker-dockman, had three conversations with Allen of the Chicago personnel department, one with Sparks (his immediate store supervisor), and another with Sheer (the store operating superintendent). In his first talk with Allen in the marking room around January 13, Allen made his usual introductory remarks, referring to his position in Chicago, the Union's recognitional demand, and his lack of interest in the employee's union attitude. Allen credibly testified that "the first thing that [Sherman] talked about" was the Redford Clinic, Sherman describing it as "a lousy place for the Company to send employees [to] who had injuries or were ill." Also according to Allen's credited testimo- ny, Sherman protested that "the rate of pay he was receiving was too low for the type of work he was doing" and complained that another employee (Maynard) "had been unfairly promoted." In his second conversation with Allen, on February 4 or 5, Sherman protested that the unionized warehouse- men at Respondent's Highland Park store, 10 to 15 miles away, were paid more. Allen replied that he "didn't know" their rate, but "would find out. -9 Sherman tes- tified credibly, without contradiction, that in the same conversation he also complained to Allen 'about the Company's "hiring employees off the street and giving them a higher paying job, and not promoting from within"; and that he also complained about the heaters I do not ascribe to Allen any deliberate intention to falsify or mislead, I was left with the impression that he sought to minimize the effect upon employees of his remarks ' Findings in this and succeeding paragraph are based on substantially uncontradicted testimony of Smith 9 Store Manager Cone testified that average earnings of paint salesmen (who were on "straight commission") were 20 percent above those of checker-dockmen (Smith 's salaried classification prior to the transfer) Cone indicated that while a transfer from the dock to paint sales "can represent a promotion ," this is not necessarily so since a transferee could turn out to be a poor salesman This apparently occurred in Smith 's case, since after about 7 weeks in the paint department he asked to be returned to his former hourly paid checker-dockman job- a request which Cone approved ° Allen testified that after checking the matter with Store Manager Cone, he told Sherman the next day that Sherman's information was inaccurate. 493 on the dock, needed repairs to equipment, and "better treatment from our immediate supervisors." Allen said that he "would check into it." Allen also recalled Sher- man's raising the "bad deal" he got "a couple of years ago" when he was made night receiving "supervisor,"10 only to be removed after 2 or 3 weeks for an allegedly poor job, although he had been complimented on his performance. Allen disclaimed any knowledge of the event, explaining that he knew nothing of "the situations . . . that have happened in the past in the store." The third conversation took place at the Snackette or coffeeshop on March 5 or 6. Allen credibly testified that after Sherman introduced him to a friend-a former Sears' employee-Sherman said to Allen, "If you want to hear what's wrong with this Company ask this guy [the friend]." Allen said that he "wasn't asking anybody what was wrong with'the Company." According to Allen, Sherman concluded the conversation with, "It doesn't do any good to talk to you. Things are lousy here. Things are real bad." According to Sherman, Allen offered "to help us with our problems, and try to rectify any complaints we had," to which Sherman responded, "the damage was already done, and what's to stop, even if the conditions improved, to go back the same way they was before, before the union activities started up."ii Around the same time (end of February or early March) Sherman had a conversation with Sparks, his immediate supervisor and head of the shipping and receiving department. Sparks said, "we are all human and that we make mistakes, and in the future he will try to be more understanding towards [Sherman], as well as the employees." Sherman remarked, "the reason that [Sparks] was being so nice and working conditions improved is because of the union activities, and what's to stop it to go back to the way it was before." Later . 10 It is unnecessary to resolve the testimonial conflict as to whether or not the job was supervisory. 11 The findings on all three Allen-Sherman conversations are based primarily on Allen's testimony Although I have not credited all details on which Allen testified (including his denial that he ever told "Sherman or any employee that [he] was there to rectify complaints"). I have found Allen's accounts of the conversations generally more reliable than Sherman's Sherman impressed me as a quick-tempered , disgruntled employee, eager to impugn the Company's motives However, I do not regard as significant Sherman's failure to mention certain matters (including problems he raised with Allen) in his prehearing affidavit to a Board agent , since it appears that that affidavit was given primarily to support charges other than those here litigated, namely, that Sherman had been unlawfully discriminated against by being forced to take a leave of absence, which charges apparently were dropped by General Counsel Although, as indicated , and findings in this section up to this point are based largely on Allen's testimony , I have credited those portions of Sherman's which were uncontradicted, corroborated by other credible testimony , or in line with inherent probability e g , complaints and improvements discussed with managerial officials, includ- ing Allen's offer "to help [the employees] with our problems, and to try to rectify any complaints we had." I specifically discredit Sher- man's uncorroborated testimony that in course of the conversations, Allen made such statements as "Sears has just as good benefits, if not better, than a store without^a union" and that he (Allen) stated that he "don't see any reason why we need a union." Allen impressed me as a knowledgeable and sophisticated individual, experienced in dealing with unions and union matters I yam convinced that in his talks with employees, Allen studiously avoided direct references to unionism 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sparks asked Sherman "if working conditions improved, and is he being a better supervisor."12 In February, apparently before the above incident, Superintendent Sheer informed Sherman , as he had Smith (supra. sec. A, 2, a) that Sherman was one of several employees "being considered " for the stock supervisor job which had been vacated by Supervisor Lampman. Sherman told Sheer that he did not want the job because he was "never before all of this union activity started" offered a supervisory position or other "promotion."13 c. Graczyk In middle January, Allen approached Graczyk, a receiving clerk , and after his usual preliminary remarks, asked whether Graczyk had "any problems or griev- ances" he "would like to talk about." Graczyk said, "we had a need for more men on the dock, and better equipment, or to repair the equipment, and better dock service." Allen answered that he "would see if he could try to correct these complaints." In a second conversation, on February 5 or 6, also in the receiving area , Allen asked "if any conditions had been changed or rectified since our last meeting." Graczyk said that "some of them had been," but that "nothing had been done about the dock service itself. "14 4 or 5, Allen again approached Cryer and asked "had any of the grievances been settled ." Cryer answered that some had, such as the one rectified through the newly installed heated dock office.15 e. Pike On January 13, Bennett (like Allen with Respondent's Chicago Personnel Department) spoke with Pike , another receiving and shipping employee . According to Bennett, he mentioned that the Union had filed an election peti- tion, asked "what his job was," and inquired "how things were going with him." Pike credibly testified that Bennett said "he had known of the union activities, and he had come from Chicago to talk to the employees and try to figure out-try to get their grievances and complaints, and see if anything could be done to correct them . "'" Pike said that he had no complaint , but (accord- ing to Bennett) added that "he felt there was a need for an electric hoist on the dock to be used for hauling, loading and unloading paint ." In course of the conversa- tion Bennett also mentioned that "each individual has his right, if he wants to vote for the union or not; that it was up to him."" B. Correction of Employee Grievances and Complaints; Improvements in Working Conditions d. Cryer Around January 13, Allen approached Cryer, another shipping and receiving employee . After identifying him- self and making his usual introductory remarks, Allen asked if Cryer had "any grievances." Cryer said that his "pay was low, insurance was inadequate , equipment needed repairing "-specifically mentioning the poor con- dition of jacks, the need of "warm clothing . . . in the frigid weather," and the lack of sufficient heat in the dock office. In a second conversation on February 1z Based on the credited testimony of Sherman . Although Sparks denied the statements attributed to him , he admitted Sherman had said that "the reason for all of these changes .. . in working conditions is due to Union activity." According to Sparks , Sherman 's remark about union activity was typical , being his "pet" phrase "on any occasion and at any time." The statements Sherman attributed to Sparks regarding improved conditions and Company mistakes strike me as inherently probable and consistent in tenor with the pattern of other Company utterances As hereafter noted (sec. C), Store Manager Cone later admittedly made similar remarks about himself and the store supervisors having been "guilty of neglect ," apologizing for paying too little attention on "the important human problems" facing employees 13 Based on uncontradicted testimony of Sherman. Sheer did not testify. ' Based on the credited testimony of Graczyk Admitting the two conversations , Allen claimed that in the first one Graczyk had merely said that all was "fine " when asked "how things were going ," while in the second Graczyk complained about wages . Allen denied asking any employee whether any complaints had been corrected or giving any assurances that anything would be done about them Although recognizing that Graczyk's recollection on some aspects (working condi- tion improvements) are unclear and that his testimony on others was conflicting, I nevertheless find his testimony on the matters here described plausible and consistent with the pattern of conduct by Allen and other supervisors, as corroborated and shown by other credible evidence and circumstances. General Counsel adduced evidence purporting to show that in response to complaints and grievances elicited from employees Respondent instituted improvements in working conditions to discourage Union activity. On the other hand , Respondent adduced evidence designed to show that some complaints and problems raised by the men were not acted upon , that some improvements had been planned before advent of the Union, and that correction of equipment and facilities was "a contin- uing factor" in the store and "unrelated" to the Union activity. 1. Promotions and job transfers Smith: As already shown (supra, sec. A, 2, a), after Allen of the Chicago Personnel Department asked Smith is Based primarily on the testimony of Cryer, but only to the extent found herein I do not credit Cryer's testimony that Allen told him that "if we didn 't get a union , Sears, Roebuck was going to correct our conditions"-an outright coercive statement of the type not attributed to Allen by any other employee and, as heretofore noted (supra, fn 11), not one a sophisticated individual like Allen would likely have made Under all the circumstances , I credit Allen's denial that he made the alleged coercive remark. Allen admitted the two conversations with Cryer, but, as in the case of Graczyk, claimed that the first had been brief and unproductive ; and that it was only in the second that the employee raised any grievances-in the case of Cryer questions concerning hospitalization benefits and the Redford Clinic, the slippery dock surface , "the poor state of repair and maintenance of the hydraulic jacks," and the need for "protective clothing" in cold weather '" Pike impressed me as a truthful, forthright, and careful witness. I do not credit Bennett's general denial that he made the statement in question. 'r Testimony on the Bennett-Pike conversation was admitted for back- ground purposes only, the complaint having alleged no specific impermis- sible conduct on the part of Bennett SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. 495 if he had "any problems or complaints " about his job, Smith mentioned among other things that he had worked for Respondent for 5 years without a promotion. Allen answered that he would "look into it." Later , Superin- tendent Sheer told Smith that he was being considered for the vacant stock supervisor position , but Smith turned this down , indicating a preference for a selling job. The next day Smith was offered a shoe salesman's position , but Smith declined this also. Later he was offered and accepted a sales job in the paint department. Store Manager Cone testified that it was "policy of the company to provide an employment opportunity for every person on our payroll . . . to rise within our organization . . . in full keeping with the individual's capacity and motivation." He indicated that in line with this policy "there is a substantial movement of personnel from indirect sales " (such as a receiving and shipping position) to "direct sales ," a more desirable job, with more opportunity for increased earnings and promotion. Sherman : As already indicated (supra . sec. A, 2, b), Sherman who had been made night receiving "super- visor" 2 years ago , had been removed after 2 or 3 weeks for alleged poor performance . Nevertheless, after complaining against Respondent's promotion policy (in his second conversation with Allen on February 4 or 5), he was told that he was being considered for the stock supervisor position . Store Manager Cone admitted that Sherman was one of the four candidates selected by Superintendent Sheer for consideration . The others were Smith , Vaughn , and Oelette-the last named ulti- mately promoted.' 2. Poor lighting inwork areas As Store Manager Cone testified , Allen in his "discus- sions with the employees within the receiving and mark- ing operation " learned that "this area was poorly illumi- nated." Cone thereupon instructed Sheer to direct the store engineer in charge of maintenance (Czapran) to correct the condition , which he did. Cone testified that other lighting corrections were made before and after Allen's conversations with employees , in and outside of the receiving and shipping area. 3. Rough tabletop surfaces According to Cone , Allen also informed him of expressed dissatisfaction with the tabletops in marking rooms . Allen immediately directed the carpenters to attend to the matter by providing "a more suitable work surface." 4. Equipment repair Allen similarly called Cone 's attention to employee complaints concerning the condition of skid-jacks used in lifting heavy freight off the floor to move it to different store areas . Cone's investigation showed "that the main- tenance of these jacks had been neglected for a consider- able period of time" and that it created a hazardous and unsafe condition . According to Cone , he directed the store engineer to attend to the matter "very promptly and with first priority." In or about March, Respondent also installed a new electric lift hoist , used to take loads off the dock. As noted , Bennett, of the Chicago personnel department, learned of the employees ' desire for such equipment in his January conversation with Pike ; and Bennett, in turn , relayed the matter to Cone .' Cone testified that he "had an awareness . . .about the need " of such equipment even before receiving this report , that he had discussed this subject with other management officials, and that employee Wilson had earlier suggested getting one. 5. Heated dock Another employee complaint voiced to Allen involved the lack (since the fall of 1968) of a heated dock office where outdoor dock employees could seek shelter from cold weather and do paper work . It is admitted that by the end of January , Respondent erected a new dock office with a heater . However , I credit Company testimo- ny to the effect that the new dock office was planned long before the Union came on the scene. Respondent had had a small dock office, heated by a small electric heater , until September 1968. Sparks , the head of the receiving and shipping department , testified credibly that in March and April 1968, after several employees had complained to him about the office , he discussed with the store engineer and operating superintendent "the possibility " of replacing it with "a new dock office." In September , a definitive decision was made to construct a new heated office "after the peak Christmas season" and thereupon (also in September) the old office was torn down. According to Sparks , the Christmas season ended about the first week in January , but construction of a new office was delayed to January 20 because the carpenters and painters were engaged in removing season displays "and some remodeling of the sales floor which is the first concern of our business." The new office was completed in 3 days (i.e., January 23) and a heater installed on January 29. 6. Protective clothing Store Manager Cone acknowledged that Allen "advised [him] that lack of proper clothing was an irritating source of complaint to people working on the dock." Subsequently Respondent furnished warm weather gear on a pooled basis ; i.e., jackets and coveralls were made available to inside employees when working outdoors on the dock . Cone admitted that only gloves had previously been provided , despite the "complaint previously of those people permanently on the dock," explaining that he thought it was against "Sears' policy" to furnish other protective gear . According to Cone, he authorized issuance of the additional clothing after Allen advised him that "it was somewhat of an optional situation with respect to the manager of the store." Also according to Cone, he had not been aware of 496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the hardship and indeed business "inefficiency" resulting from employees working intermittently on the dock hav- ing to secure personal protective clothing from cloak rooms and automobiles. 7. Increasing men on the dock As noted supra (sec. A, 2, c), one of the complaints of Graczyk to Allen in their mid-January conversation was that more men were needed on the dock. Allen replied that he would look into this as well as other complaints. While Graczyk testified that more men worked on the dock in and after February, his testimony on this point, including the number and identify of individuals assigned, is vague and uncertain. To be sure, the manner in which Respondent makes its assign- ments renders it difficult to resolve the issue posed. Thus, employees working predominately inside the store (e.g., checkers) could be moved to "part-time" outside dock work and others working predominately outside could be assigned to "part-time" inside work, depending on need; indeed, all subject to these assignments have the same classification of "checker-dockman." Further- more, during the period here involved Respondent was obliged to reassign outside dock work as a result of employee illness and disability and, in one case, military service of a dockman. In any event, General Counsel in his brief (p.11) claims no more than that Respondent added one "regular" (or permanent) dockman in Febru- ary, thereby increasing the regular dock force from three in January to four in subsequent months.18 Howev- er, Supervisor Sparks' uncontradicted, credited testimo- ny shows that the four regulars employed in December were reduced to three in January only because one (McMahon) left for military service on January 3; that because of the slack season in January, no replacement was made for this employee until February 7, when Respondent again attained a full four-man complement; and that because of the increased dock work which "starts building up for [the] spring season" in February, Respondent retained the four-man dock force in March and April. Sparks' testimony is corroborated by that of Grazyk, who admitted that in February "we seemed to be getting more trucks in, more merchandise" at the dock than in January, and that the men were "behind in their work" in February. 8. Better treatment from supervisors As noted supra (sec. A, 2, b), Sherman had complained to Allen, among other things, about the treatment "from our immediate supervisors." Thereafter Sparks, Sher- man's supervisor, spoke with Sherman, telling him that "in the future he will try to be more understanding." Still later, Sparks asked Sherman whether he was not now "a better supervisor." 'B While , as General Counsel claims, two part -timers (Moore and Pike) augmented the four-man dock force , these were merely inside workers "more likely to go out " on the dock than would other checkers in January and before 9. Unrectified complaints Allen testified that many of the employee complaints and problems raised in his conversations were not acted upon by management . Among these were alleged low wages (supra, sec. A, 2, b) and method of handling merit wage increases ; Saturday overtime ; fully paid hos- pitalization and maternity benefits; insufficient help in the supply room , customer pickup desk , and on trucks; onerous or unsavory duties such as unloading tires and portering ; and condition of facilities , such as slippery dock surface and no lock on a marking ticket cabinet. 10. Past Company policy and practice on improvements Respondent adduced evidence purporting to show that maintenance of equipment throughout the store was a continuing practice. Store Manager Cone testified that equipment installed when the store opened (Fall 1964) was being replaced or repaired "with increasing frequen- cy" and new equipment was being added "because of the rapid growth of business." Cone's testimony is supported by Company records, including budgets for capital and maintenance expenditures. Cone testified on various improvements made before advent of the Union as a result of suggestions and complaints by employees as well as managerial officials. Thus, as a result of "a congested, cramped operation causing complaints of the employees," he had "doubled the size" of the receiving office in 1965 and he enlarged it again in 1968. Similar complaints regarding "over- crowded conditions" and "inability to move merchan- dise" from the dock to stockroom led him in 1968 to a decision to enlarge that facility. Facilities other than the shipping and receiving department here directly involved were remodeled, revamped, or refurnished in early 1969-including retail division 4265 (plumbing, heating, and kitchen-planning), men's store, women's and children's shoes, girls' department, male employees' lounge, and major appliances-some prompted by "expressed dissatisfaction" of employees, others by business growth, and still others by "development of new ways for presenting merchandise." Cone testified that in the past he learned of employee "problems" through his operating superintendent (Sheer) and other supervisors in daily contact with employees, as well as from employees directly while walking through the store. Employee Pike testified that "You could just go upstairs and ask to see Mr. Sheer or Mr. Cone and tell them your complaints," but Pike later qualified this by stating that he "just assumed this."]s Employee iB Pike's assumption presumably was based on a company booklet ("Getting Acquainted with Sears"), distributed to new employees, telling them to "feel free to take your problem " to a supervisor or the store's personnel department Pike testified , however, that prior to Cone 's April 3 speech (discussed infra) he could "recall" no instance when a supervisor personnally told him that he could bring his complaints to him ; and that he never took any complaint to Cone or Sheer He did testify that while working in the stockroom , Sheer would come around "almost every day or every other day" and since his transfer to receiving, "not quite so often ," to ask him "how everthing was going " SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. Smith indicated that in the 5 years he had been with the Company no management representative or supervi- sor ever approached him "to solicit" complaints, prior to Allen's questioning following the advent of the Union. Sherman, who had worked for the Company for about 5 years and Graczyk a total of about 3 years, testified to the same effect. C. Store Manager Cone's April 3 Speech On April 1, the Regional Director issued his Decision and Direction of Election in the representation proceed- ing (supra, fn. 4) determining in essence that one of the Union's three requested units-a unit of shipping and receiving employees-was not appropriate and in effect dismissing the petition insofar as it related to those employees.20 At approximately 4 p.m. on April 3, Cone called a meeting of all the shipping and receiving employees to inform them that they would not participate in the election. Also present was Allen of the Chicago personnel department who had examined and made two corrections in a draft of a speech prepared by Cone. Cone read his prepared text verbatim and answered a question put by an employee.21 At the outset of his speech, Cone explained that he "thought it important that we talk together briefly regarding the recent Union activity." He gave a history of the representation proceeding, including. the basis of the Regional Director's Decision for ruling against an appropriate unit confined to shipping and receiving employees. Cone then stated: More important than the legal procedures and the ultimate decision, more important to you and more important to me, is the need to assure you of my interest in the problems within your Depart- ment. As you know, Greg Allen . . . has spent a considerable amount of time within your Depart- ment in an attempt to learn about your problems and to counsel with myself, Mr. Sheer, and Mr. Sparks, concerning their correction. We hope that we have made some progress. Let me assure you that Mr. Allen, Mr. Sheer, together with myself, will continue to devote time to your activities, listen to your problems, and mutually seek their solution. The atmosphere of a Sears store is, and always has been, one in which an employee feels "comfortable" and has the every-day awareness that all members of supervision and management are available to him for the purpose of sharing his problems, both business and personal. I am sure that we have been guilty of neglect and for that, I apologize. I furthermore give you my assur- ance that it will not reoccur. It appears in retrospect, that the fast pace of activities within your depart- 10 Although it prevailed on this point, Respondent filed a request for review of the Regional Director's other findings (e g , appropriateness of two other nonselling units in which the Union sought representation), which appeal is still pending before the Board 21 Based on the mutually corroborative and credited testimony of Cone and Allen, in essential parts also corroborated by General Counsel's witnesses Pike, Graczyk, and Cryer 497 ments caused me, caused Mr. Sheer, and caused your supervisors, to devote too much time to our business problems and too little time to the impor- tant human problems that we all have. I have no feelings about or toward any employee who may have expressed an interest in the Union. I am not curious nor inquisitive as to who they are or might have been. I am most concerned with the business and personal welfare of each and every one of you and in providing an employ- ment opportunity that is rewarding, from which you can derive job satisfaction, and from which you can seek promotion to activities that best make use of your abilities and capacities. In conclusion, I thank you all for coming, and I emphasize to you my interest in you and in your activities and I give you my assurance that Mr. Sheer, Mr. Allen, Mr. Sparks-all of your supervisors and I, will work in the direction of correcting our faults and sharing your problems with you. D. Conclusions 1. Solicitation and adjustment of grievances a. As the Supreme Court emphasized in N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409, "The broad purpose of § 8(a)(1) is to establish `the right of employees to organize for mutual aid without employer interfer- ence."' This does not preclude an employer from com- municating with his employees on unionism or engaging in legitimate propaganda to defeat an organizational drive. It does, however, proscribe conduct which, expressly or impliedly, carries a "threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." (Sec. 8(c) of the Act.) Such promise or threat may be implicit and implied rather than direct.22 Labor relations is a field where "subtleties of conduct play no small part." N.L.R.B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U.S. 426, 437. Indeed, "[t]oday the employer seldom engages in crude, flagrant derelictions. Nowadays it is usually a case of more subtlety, perhaps the more effective, and certainly more likely to escape legal condemnation." N.L.R.B. v. Neuhoff Brothers, Packers, Inc., 375 F.2d 372, 374 (C.A. 5). "The test is whether the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act." American Freightways Co., Inc., 124 NLRB 146,147 .23 In making this determination, it should be borne in mind that it is the reasonable "construction [to be given] by the listener" (Hendrix Manufacturing Co. v. N.L.R.B., 321 F.2d 100, 104 (C.A. 5)), which is critical. Also to be "take[n] into account [is] the 22 See N L R B v Gissel Packing Company, Inc , 395 U S 575, 618-619 , Exchange Parts, supra, 375 U S at 409-410, N L R B. v. Flomatic Corporation, 347 F 2d 74, 77 (C A 2), N L R B v Bendix Corp., 299 F 2d 308, 309 (C A. 6) 23 See also Come Corporation of Charleston v N.L R.B , 375 F.2d 149, 153 (C A 4), N L R B v Illinois Tool Works, 153 F 2d 811 (C A 7) 498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD economic dependence of the [listening] employee[s] on the[ir] employer[s] " N L R B v Gissel, supra, 395 U S at617 b The basic issue here is whether Respondent's solici- tation of employee grievances in response to the Union's recognition demand, coupled with correction of those grievances during the organizational campaign, may rea- sonably be construed as illegal attempts to discourage Union activity I agree with able Company counsel (reply br 3-6) that no per se rule of thumb applies Determination of the issue turns on the entire congeries of facts in each case, including such factors as the employer's true motive in soliciting and correcting the grievances, his past policies and practices, and the nature of the corrective action-the basic criterion being wheth- er the employer's conduct was calculated or had the reasonable tendency to induce employees to forsake the union See, e g , Texaco Inc (Evansville, Indiana Bulk Station), 178 NLRB No 72 24 I also agree with Respondent that Board cases-such as Engineered Build- ing Products Inc , 162 NLRB 649, 650, fn 1, 654-655- indicate that soliciting grievances , without more , is per- missible, even if occasioned by a union request for recognition 25 While under certain circumstances an employer, equating attempts to join a union with employ- ee discontent and a "morale" problem, may inform himself as a matter of "simple curiosity as to what in the employees' working conditions disturbed them to the extent where they desired to have union represen- tation" (Texaco Inc , supra, 178 NLRB No 72), the Board cases indicate, however, that the employer's soli- citation is unlawful if it appears to be part of "a pattern of unfair labor practices" (Engineered Building, supra, 162 NLRB at 650) or is otherwise bound to impress upon employees that they are in no need of a union to rectify working conditions and gain benefits previously denied or not forthcoming Adjustment of working condi- tions during an organizational campaign , in response to complaints elicited through questioning triggered by advent of a union, may, in certain circumstances, consti- tute or be tantamount to granting betterments or improve- ments, the reasonable tendency of which is to chill unionism and to induce rejection of the previously desig- nated bargaining representative 26 21 Cf N L R B v Harbison Fischer Manufacturing Co 304 F 2d 738 739-740 (C A 5) Hendrix Manufacturing v N L R B supra 321 F 2d at 103-105 25 See also Stuart F Cooper Co 136 NLRB 142 but see Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corporation 169 NLRB 9 enforcement denied on facts 404 F 2d 581 (C A 8) 2" See for example the following in which the Board found 8(a)(1) violations Union Furniture Company Inc 118 NLRB 1148 1149 1155 ( systematic questioning of the employees concerning their gripes and complaints followed by corrections pursuant to promises to do something toward bettering conditions) American Freightways Co Inc 124 NLRB 146 (adjustment of two grievances during an organza tional campaign) Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corporation 169 NLRB 90 (meetings with employees to have them air their grievances and thereafter granting them benefits pursuant to the complaints International Harvester Company 170 NLRB No 134 (inquiries concern mg grievances and corrections even where employees were not ques tioned about union membership) Eagle picker Industries Inc 171 NLRB No 44 ( initiating during the election campaign a series of gripe sessions at which [employer] solicited employees complaints and prom c Applying these principles, I find that Respondent's solicitation and correction of employee complaints and grievances under the circumstances of this case reached the level of interference in the unfettered exercise of employee statutory rights As found, upon receiving the Union's recognition request, Store Manager Cone promptly, indeed "within the hour," contacted his mid- western territory (Chicago) headquarters, which agreed with him that the Livonia store faced a "morale" prob- lem To solve this problem, two highly placed personnel officials (Allen and Bennett) were promptly dispatched to the store, there to systematically question employees concerning specifics of their dissatisfactions and griev- ances Introducing themselves as officials "out of the Personnel Department from Chicago," Allen and Ben- nett, after pointedly calling attention of the interviewed employee to the Union's recognition demand, asked him if he had "any problems or complaints" about his job (while intoning the formula to the employee that they were not interested in the employee's union attitude) After hearing out the employee, the Company official would promise to "look into" the voiced griev- ance or try to rectify it Allen, as he testified, thus learned of "a lot of various complaints" which he reported to the store manager or operating superintend- ent Some of the stated grievances admittedly were corrected Smith, who had complained about Respond- ent's failure to promote him in his 5 years at Sears, was approached on three separate occasions about a transfer or promotion-first by Superintendent Sheer who advised him that he was being considered for a vacant stock supervisor position, then by the head of a shoe department who offered him a sales job, and later again by Sheer who offered him a similar job in the paint department and which Smith finally accepted Sherman, who also complained about Respondent's promotion policy, was similarly informed that he was being considered for the stock supervisor job, even though 2 years earlier he was told that he was being removed from a night dock "supervisor" position because he allegedly failed there Also, after complaining to Allen about the treatment of "our immedi- ate supervisors," the head of Sherman's department (Sparks) came to assure Sherman that he "will try to be more understanding " Still later, Sparks asked him whether he was not now "a better supervisor " Other complaints-by Smith, Sherman, and other employees-relating to working conditions were rec- tified, including complaints about lighting in work areas, a tabletop surface, equipment such as jacks, and use of protective clothing in cold weather 27 This in totality ised corrective action at a time when this would have the natural tendency to interfere with the employees organizational rights ) North west Engineering Company 148 NLRB 1136 1139-40 (initiating meetings with employees prior to election for the purpose of ascertaining and correcting grievances) Cf S & H Grossinger s Inc 156 NLRB 233 234 modified on other grounds 372 F 2d 26 28 (C A 2) 27 In reaching the conclusions herein I do not rely on Respondent s adjustment of employee complaints regarding the unheated dock office since this correction was planned and decided upon before advent of the Union nor on Respondents alleged assignment of additional men on the dock since it appears that no material changes were made in this regard SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. had all the earmarks of Employer channeling of the Union's request for collective bargaining into the Employer 's preferred channel of individual bargaining and thus a restraint of and interference with the employ- ees' statutorily guaranteed rights to bargain collectively if they so preferred. d. In my view , the beneficial changes in terms and conditions of employment effected during the organiza- tional drive under the circumstances shown , in response to unprecedented grievance solicitations and promises to look into (or attempt to, rectify) grievances by high- level management officials from Respondent's Chicago headquarters , following hard on the heels of the Union's collective-bargaining request , were purposed to foster and had the effect of creating the impression that the employees ' needs and wants could be satisfied through individual dealings , without a union , and that they needed no labor organization to represent them . Under the circumstances , I find that Respondent's action in at least substantial material part was motivated by a desire to wean away its dissatisfied employees from Union representation and collective dealing , or at least to chill their ardor for organizational activity . No other satisfac- tory explanation has been put forward for Respondent's three successive job offers and assurances of job consid- eration following the Union' s bargaining request to an employee (Smith) who had been totally neglected in this respect for no less than 5 years ; or for its treatment of another employee (Sherman) who had 2 years earlier been removed from a responsible position and now was suddenly for no apparent reason tendered assurance of consideration for supervisory promotion and better treatment by his superiors ; or for its rectifying longstand- ing grievances in regard to working conditions such as lack of adequate clothing to protect against freezing weather on the dock. Although in their conversations with employees Company officials did not in haec verba "promise " any grievance correction as the quid pro quo for abandoning the Union , even the most naive employee could hardly be left with any impression other than the inquiries were triggered by the organizational drive , particularly since the Company official in his inquiry expressly linked the grievance solicitation with the pending Union request for recognition . Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Flomatic Corporation, 347 F.2d 74, 77 (C.A. 2). The "intended and understood import of [the] message" (N.L.R.B. v. Gissel, supra, 395 U. S. at 619) was plain. "Employees are not likely to miss the inference that the source of benefits now conferred is also the source from which future benefits must flow and ,which may dry up if it is not obliged ." N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U. S. 405 , 409. As in Northwest Engineer- ing Company, 148 NLRB 1136, 1140 , "the questioning of employees concerning their grievances preliminary to making . . . changes, and the changes themselves, were part of a unified plan of the Respondent which was reasonably calculated to influence employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act through granting or holding out the promise of benefits ." See also Texaco Inc., supra , 178 NLRB No. 72. 499 e. To be sure, as Respondent has pointed out, the evidence is not one sided. In cases like this, it seldom is. Livonia is a comparatively new and expanding store. Improvements, replacements, and maintenance of equip- ment and facilities are continuing factors; and budgets and expenditures progressively grow. Moreover, some of the improvements in question could be justified on business grounds, as for example correction of the jacks which presented a safety hazard. Nor were all complaints acted upon, as for instance those on wages, hospitaliza- tion benefits, insufficient help, and the slippery condition of the dock surface. Furthermore, I have no doubt that a satisfied work force was a major Company objec- tive and that, even before advent of the Union, Respond- ent had indicated to employees that they could discuss problems with supervisors since low employee morale could indeed have a deletrious effect on business. There is also evidence that Store Manager Cone in the past occasionally called on the Chicago Personnel Department for assistance in handling employee morale. Giving due weight to these and other considerations adverted to by Respondent, I nevertheless conclude, for reasons already indicated, that the grievance solicita- tions, promises to look into the complaints or to try to correct them, and the betterments in fact instituted, were instituted or at least catalyzed by the Union's collective-bargaining request and were accordingly ten- dered and calculated to influence or persuade employees to abandon support for the Union and to forget about collective bargaining. Although prior to the organization- al drive Respondent, as it claims, had avenues through which employees could voice complaints (including talks with supervisors), it had never previously solicited griev- ances directly from employees-and certainly not in the systematic or massive fashion employed by headquar- ters emissaries from the prestigious Chicago Personnel Department itself. Cf. Texaco Inc., supra, 178 NLRB No. 72; Union Furniture, supra, 118 NLRB 1148. The unusual attention bestowed upon employees, the unprec- edented procedure and deviation from prior practice, could and did reasonably lead dissatisfied employees to conclude that but for the Union drive complaints would have remained unalleviated. The fact that all conditions complained about were not satisfied is not determinative, since (for example) Respondent may sim- ply have regarded some as too costly or unnecessary. For like reasons I do not regard as decisive the circum- stance that General Counsel's evidence on the unlawful conduct is confined to the shipping and receiving employ- ees and does not extend to the automative and mainte- nance departments in which the Union also sought repre- sentation (supra, fn. 4). The fact is that the shipping and receiving department was the object of the Union's organizational drive. For aught that appears, the Union supporters were concentrated in that department, the conditions there lent themselves to correction more readi- ly than in other departments, and Respondent was more concerned about organization of the shipping and receiv- ing employees than of others. Finally, it is no answer that the grievance solicitations were unaccompanied by threats and derogatory antiunion statements, or were 500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not part of a "pattern . . . of unfair labor practices" or that no other unlawful conduct was found . "Defeat of [Section 7] rights by employer action does not neces- sarily depend on the existence of an antiunion bias." Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, 23. See also N.L.R.B. v. Mrak Coal Company, 322 F.2d 311 , 313. (C.A. 9); Terry Ihdustries of Virginia, Inc., 164 NLRB 872(TXD), enfd . 403 F.2d 633 (C.A. 4). For all of the foregoing reasons I find and conclude that under all of the circumstances shown , including its timing, Respondent's conduct in questioning employ- ees concerning grievances , soliciting grievances , promis- ing to look into or try to correct them and then correcting them , was at least in substantial part motivated by a desire to dampen and discourage employees' Union activity . Respondent thereby interfered with and restrained employees in the exercise of their statutory rights to self-organization , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. The April 3 speech As found (supra, sec. C), after the Regional Director issued his Decision and Direction of Election, Store Manager Cone delivered a speech to shipping and receiv- ing employees, announcingto them that the Regional Director found their department, standing alone, not an appropriate unit and that they would not vote in the upcoming election. Cone then assured the men of the Company's interest in their problems, apologizing for the supervisors' past neglect, and promised them that "it will not reoccur," explaining that thenceforth the supervisors "will work in the direction of correcting our faults and sharing your problems with you." Cone also indicated that he had "no feelings about or toward any employee who may have expressed an interest in the Union," stating that he was "most concerned" with the employees' "welfare" and in providing them "an employment opportunity that is rewarding," satisfy- ing, and which could lead to promotions in line with employee "abilities and capacities." The complaint alleg- es that this speech was coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because Cone therein "instructed said employees to direct their complaints concerning working conditions directly to him and stated that they would be hospitably considered." I do not agree. To begin with, Cone's speech cannot reasonably be construed as an instruction or direction that employees bring their complaints to management, to the exclusion of bringing and pressing complaints through a collective representative of their choosing. While Cone clearly indicated that, unlike in the past, their complaints would be "hospitably considered," I do not regard this assurance, outside the context of contemporaneous Union activity and a pending election, as coercive. Insofar as the shipping and receiving employees were concerned, the election campaign was over. There is no evidence that subsequent to the Region- al Director's Decision (which made them ineligible to vote) the Union filed 'or intended to file a new petition to include them as part of an appropriate unit. As indicated supra (sec. D, 1), employer solicitation and correction of grievances in an organizational campaign may be unlawful where his conduct can reasonably be construed as a subtle employer technique to wean dissatisfied employees away from a union, to impress upon them that they need no labor organization to secure correction of working conditions, and to influence their vote by granting or holding out promise of benefits. No such interference is justifiable from the timing and content of Cone's speech. Cf. Orkin Exterminating Com- pany of Kansas, Inc., 136 NLRB 630, 638-639. I find and conclude that Cone's April 3 speech did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their statutory rights to self-organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.28 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Under the circumstances shown, by questioning employees concerning their grievances, soliciting griev- ances, promising to look into or attempt to rectify them, and by rectifying working conditions and instituting work betterments, in response to the elicited grievances- all at least in substantial part motivated by intent to discourage Union adherence and activity-Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. , 3. It has not been established that Respondent, through Store Manager, Cone's speech of April 3, inter- fered with, restrained, or coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action customarily required to reme- dy unfair labor practices of the, nature found. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER Sears , Roebuck and Co., Livonia, Michigan, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: " The record shows that Cone's prepared speech was also delivered (in the same manner as Cone) by Superintendent Sheer to two groups of other stockroom employees The complaint did not allege Sheer's conduct to be a violation. For reasons stated, I would find his speeches privileged even if so alleged SEARS , ROEBUCK AND CO. (a) Questioning employees and soliciting from them grievances regarding working conditions , promising to rectify and rectifying them , and instituting work better- ments, with the purpose of interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in their free and unfettered choice of a bargaining representative ; or so as to induce or cause employees to reject and refrain from activities in behalf or continued support of Local 299 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind., or any other labor organi- zation ; provided, however , that nothing in this Order shall be construed as requiring Respondent to vary or abandon any benefits or working conditions heretofore placed into effect. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its store in Livonia , Michigan , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."29 Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent 's authorized representative , shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 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 mate- rial. (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps have been taken to comply herewith.30 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis- missed in all other respects. ra In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 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. In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States 501 Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " '" 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 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT question or solicit you as to com- plaints and grievances regarding working conditions, nor shall we correct working conditions complained about , in order to interfere with your choice of bargaining representative , or so as to induce you to reject and refrain from activities in support of Local 299 , International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind., or any other labor organization. However , this will not affect benefits or corrected working conditions heretofore put into effect. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. SEARS , ROEBUCK AND Co. Dated By (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, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226 , Telephone 313-226-3200.