The M. O'Neil Co.

THE M . O'NEIL COMPANY The May Department Stores Company d/b/a The M. O'Neil Company and Retail Clerks International Association, Local 698, AFL-CIO. Cases 8-CA-5511 and 8-RC-7138 July 28, 1970 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION By MEMBERS FANNING , MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On April 29, 1970, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peter- son issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion, and also recommending that the representa- tion election held on May 22, 1969, in Case 8-RC-7138, be set aside and a new election held, all as more fully set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, a sup- porting brief, and a brief in answer to the Charging Party's cross-exceptions; the Charging Party filed cross-exceptions and brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. 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 powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, The May Department Stores Company d/b/a The M. O'Neil Company, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on May 22, 1969, be, and it hereby is, set aside. 629 [Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.2] I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner 's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear pre- ponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We find no such basis for disturbing the Trial Ex- aminer 's credibility findings herein ! In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad- dresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Un- derwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, con- taining the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 8 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE IVAR H. PETERSON, Trial Examiner: On April 23, 1969, pursuant to a petition filed May 16, 1968, by the Charging Party-Petitioner, also referred to as the Union, the Board directed an election among all regular selling and nonselling employees of the Respondent-Employer at its Stow-Kent, Ohio, store, with certain exclusions (175 NLRB 514). The election, held on May 22,' was lost by the Union by a vote of 91 to 40, with 12 challenged and 2 void ballots. The Union filed timely objec- tions on May 27 and unfair labor practice charges on June 23 (Case 8-CA-5511). On November 28 the Regional Director issued his report on the ob- jections, in which he recommended that a hearing be held on certain objections and that the hearing be consolidated with the hearing on the complaint he issued the same day alleging that the Respond- ent had committed unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in connection with the election. On December 18 the Board directed a hearing on the objections as recommended by the Regional Director and provided that such hearing might be consolidated with any hearing in the un- fair labor practice case . The cases were con- solidated for hearing by an order of the Acting Re- gional Director dated December 3 1. In its answer, the Respondent denied the commission of any un- fair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, I heard the consolidated proceeding on January 26 and 27 and February 5, 1970, at Akron, Ohio. All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to participate in the hearing and to adduce relevant evidence bearing upon the issues. Briefs filed by ' Unless otherwise indicated , all dates refer to the year 1969 184 NLRB No. 68 630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD counsel for each of the parties have been fully con- sidered. Upon the entire record in the proceeding, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT-EMPLOYER The May Department Stores Company, a New York corporation with its principal offices and place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, is engaged in retail sales of general merchandise. Through its operating division known as The M. O'Neil Com- pany it operates department stores in the vicinity of Akron, Ohio. One of these stores is the Stow-Kent store, the only retail outlet of Respondent involved herein. Annually the Respondent sells products valued in excess of $10 million and it receives goods valued in excess of $1 million at its Ohio stores directly from points located outside the State of Ohio. The Respondennt admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Retail Clerks International Association, Local 698, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Evidence The events which give rise to the issues here to be resolved took place, for the most part, during the approximately 2-week period preceding the election on May 22. As framed by the pleadings and the record the issues are whether the Respond- ent violated Section 8(a)(1) by (1) threatening employees with loss of their store discount privileges and other employment benefits, reduced hours for part-time employees, and closing of the store, if the employees selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative; and (2) un- lawfully questioning employees about their mem- bership in, activities on behalf of, and sympathy for the Union. A further issue concerns the supervisory status of one Theodore Czar and the Respondent's responsibility for his conduct. No question is raised as to the supervisory status of the remaining per- sons alleged to have engaged in coercive conduct, as the parties stipulated that they were supervisors.2 We turn next to a consideration of the evidence, in substantial part conflicting, in which these in- dividual supervisors were allegedly involved. 1. Ron Brown During the week before the election Brown, the branch store coordinator, had a conversation about the Union with Mary Wildroudt and Eileen Belmonte , in the lingerie department where the two women worked. According to Wildroudt, Brown said that the employees should give the new management a chance, and that employees would lose their discount and the store would close. Brown referred to a store (the name of which Wil- droudt could not recall) which had closed after being organized. To this, Wildroudt commented that Kaufman's, the May Company outlet in Pitts- burgh, had been organized for years and had not closed. Belmonte related that Brown said he and his wife had shopped at Kaufman's and had not been given a discount. She further testified that Brown said they would lose their discount, and that the two women replied they doubted it. Brown testified that in addition to Wildroudt and Belmonte , Emma Halachoff was present and that she asked him what he thought of the upcoming election. He replied that management was con- cerned and urged that they should give manage- ment a chance rather than vote in the Union. Brown admitted stating that employees could lose their discounts and other benefits if the Union came in because it was his understanding that such matters were negotiable. With respect to Kaufman's store in Pittsburgh, Brown testified he told the women that the store was half organized and "the ones that are union don't get discounts and the ones that aren't do get a discount." Also, Brown testified that in response to a comment by one of the women that unions were " going in everywhere," including discount houses and super- markets, he stated that Stern's store in New York, which was a union store, was closing because of in- ability to meet union demands or because of the Union. Brown stated he did not indicate that the Respondent would or might close if the Union came in. Mrs. Halachoff testified that on the day of the election, around 6 o'clock in the evening, she and others were passing through a section of the downtown Akron store and saw Brown. Mrs. Halachoff remarked (with reference to the election at the Barberton store, according to Brown) that the election "is going great." Brown then stated, so Halachoff testified, "Rather than have a union out there, we will close that store." Mrs. Halachoff testified she replied, "I don't think you really mean that," and acknowledged that in her pretrial state- ment she stated that she took Brown's remark about the store closing as a joke. Brown testified that Mrs. Halachoff said that the Union had won at Barberton, to which he replied, " Big deal, going to ' These individuals are Margaret Neff, Gladys Lower, Robert Tofanell,, Gerald Fischer, and Ron Brown THE M. O'NEIL COMPANY close that store anyway." Brown testified that at the time there "was sort of general gossip around the store that there were a couple of stores ... that they might be closing in the future and Barberton was one of them." 2. Margaret Neff Several employees testified to conversations with Mrs. Neff, divisional manager, concerning the Union. Beatrice Smith testified that during the 2- week period before the election Mrs. Neff came to her section, where Smith was talking to one of the union men , and stated, "You better be careful how you vote, you know you'll lose the discount and lose everything." According to Smith, she and Mrs. Neff frequently discussed the discount and other benefits, Mrs. Neff pointing out that employees "could lose everything, that if the Union came in that we would have to start all over again." According to Mrs. Neff, she and Mrs. Smith had frequent conversations about the Union before Mrs. Neff became a supervisor in August 1968. She testified that they held opposing views, and that upon Mrs. Neff becoming a supervisor she and Mrs. Smith agreed that they would not discuss the Union. Mrs. Neff denied that she made any remarks to Mrs. Smith threatening loss of the store discount or other benefits if the Union won. Myrtle Cobb, a full-time employee who worked under Mrs. Neff's supervision, testified that shortly before the election Mrs. Neff spoke to her and three part-time employees on the night crew in her department. It is her testimony that Mrs. Neff told the group that part-time employees would pay the same amount in union dues as full-time employees, that their hours would be reduced because the Company could not afford to have as many people if it met all the Union's demands, and that they would lose the discount. Mrs. Neff further stated, according to Mrs. Cobb, that granting all the Union's demands would cause the store to close. Mrs. Cobb testified that after this conversation one of the part-time employees present, Beverly Dick, told her that she had been for the Union but that she could not afford to pay for a babysitter and $6 union dues if hours were reduced; that in such a situation she would have to quit. Ann Rittenhouse, a part-time employee in the fashion fabrics department, testified that during the week before the election Mrs. Neff stated to her and two other employees, in talking about the Union, that discounts would or could be taken away and that the store would probably close. Mrs. Neff testified on direct examination that she recalled the conversation with Mrs. Cobb and the three part-time employees on the night crew. Her testimony is that the employees were talking about 631 the Union and the subject of discounts came up. At that time, so she testified, "there was quite a lot of conversation about the discounts" as management had placed a poster referring to discounts near the timeclocks.3 Mrs. Neff testified she told the em- ployees that she "felt like the discount was a gift from the company and we all enjoyed them and we all wanted to keep them." In response to an em- ployee's question whether she thought the hours of part-time help would be cut, Mrs. Neff testified that she replied that the Company had to stay within a certain budget and that if salaries went up a great deal "we might have to work with less part-time people." She denied that she told employees that they would lose their discounts if the Union came into the store, or that the store would close rather than deal with the Union. On cross-examination Mrs. Neff acknowledged that she had mentioned to employees that other stores had closed when a union came in and , in response to a question about the discount, told a group of employees that the discount was a benefit and she "couldn't say whether they would or would not lose it" as she had nothing to do with it. Barbara Flanders, who was present at the conver- sation with Mrs. Neff testified to by Mrs. Ritten- house, testified that the discussion concerned the union election and what would come of it. She could not recall Mrs. Neff making any statement to the effect that employees would lose their discounts if the Union came in. Nor did she "specifically" hear Mrs. Neff refer to the loss of any other benefit if the Union won. She did not hear Mrs. Neff say the store would close if the Union won. Janice Crayton, one of the part-time workers Mrs. Cobb identified as being present when Mrs. Neff made the remarks to which Mrs. Cobb testified, related that while she recalled that Mrs. Neff did discuss the Union she could not recall any specific conversation. She further testified she did not hear Mrs. Neff say the hours of part-time em- ployees would be cut or the store closed if the Union won the election. 3. Robert Tofanelli Beatrice Smith related that during the 2-week period before the election Tofanelli, a buyer located at the downtown Akron store and a super- visor, had a telephone conversation with her. She testified that he wanted to come out and talk to her about the Union, as he felt the girls were making a big mistake in wanting the Union. According to Smith, Tofanelli stated that employees could "lose everything" and could lose their discount. Tofanelli recalled the conversation and that there was some discussion of the Union. He testified on direct examination that he did not recall making ' On Friday, May 16, the Company did exhibit a poster near the timeclocks, which stated "Don 't Discount Your 20 Percent Discount Vote No May 22 " 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD any statement to Smith relative to employee discounts and denied making any statement about other benefits. On cross-examination he first stated he did not tell Mrs. Smith she would lose her discount, although he had discussed with other ex- ecutives the loss of or reduction in the discount. He then acknowledged that in his pretrial affidavit he stated that he told "other employees whenever the occasion arose, that there was also a possibility of their losing their 20 percent discount or being reduced from 20 percent to 10 percent, as in many stores. 11 4. Gladys Lower Mrs. Halachoff, Mrs. Wildroudt, and Clara Car- dini testified to a conversation they had with Mrs. Lower, supervisor of the ready-to-wear department, the Monday gefore the election. According to Mrs. Halachoff, Mrs. Lower stated that she could see the pros and cons regarding the Union, but that em- ployees would lose their discount and other benefits if the Union got in . Mrs. Wildroudt testified that Mrs. Lower referred to the Union on several occa- sions and said that employees would lose their discount. She further testified that Mrs. Lower referred to employees of a hospital which had "gone union" and their hours had been cut. Mrs. Cardini testified that in the discussion of the Union Mrs. Lower "brought up about how we could possibly lose our discounts and other benefits that the company had been giving us." When Cardini expressed some doubt that that would happen, Mrs. Lower referred to Robinson Memorial Hospital in Ravenna which was unionized and where employee benefits had not been upheld . Mrs. Cardini also testified that Mrs. Lower quite often would ask her if she had gone to union meetings and who of the employees had attended. Mrs. Lower, who voluntarily left the Respond- ent's employ the month following the election, testified that she engaged in conversation with em-. ployees about the Union and the election. She stated that two employees did ask her if they would lose their discount if the Union came in and that she told them "this was a possibility; that they would lose their discount but it wasn't something I knew as a definite thing." She testified further that she expressed the view that "if the Union came in the slate would be clean and from there the Company and the Union would negotiate" regard- ing conditions and benefits. She recalled "telling some of the girls" that Robinson Memorial Hospital had been organized and conditions were no dif- ferent than before-employees were still "griping about the same old gripes." She denied having any conversations with Mrs. Cardini about the Union. 5. Gerard Fischer During the week preceding the election Fischer, vice president of branch stores, held approximately 15 meetings with store employees in groups of ap- proximately 10 in the office of Ronald Tedeschi, the store manager. The meetings were conducted during store hours and employees were requested to attend by Personnel Manager Alice Wade. Fischer testified that the meetings were held because the Respondent "wanted to find out why some of the people felt it was necessary to have a Union" and to ascertain if there were any problems and to discuss them. He stated that employees were called in small groups in order to make for better discussion meetings. Fischer testified he followed no set format in conducting the meetings. At most of them he first talked about company benefits and then opened the meeting for discussion. He stated that the Company was constantly improving em- ployee benefits and that he did not know how the Union could do more in regard to benefits. He stated that employees would always be treated fairly whether or not the Union won. Fischer testified that on "a couple of occasions" he was asked if anything would happen to employee discounts if the Union won, and that he answered that he did not think anything would happen to the discounts. Questions were asked Fischer about the recently adopted profit-sharing and savings plan and the retirement plan. In connection with discussing job security at the Respondent 's store, Fischer referred to the closing of Stern's store in New York City, which was unionized and stated that the fact that it was organized was of little help in keeping the concern open. Fischer denied that he made any statement that the Respondent's store would be closed if the Union won the election. Mrs. Halachoff and Mrs . Belmonte attended the same meeting conducted by Fischer. Mrs. Halachoff testified Fischer said that the Respondent had been lax in the matter of communication between employees and management and hoped to remedy this problem. At one point, according to Mrs. Halachoff, Fischer questioned the caliber of men representing the Union, stating they were not the type the employees would want anything to do with . Mrs. Halachoff testified that she responded by saying that when representation was achieved the employees would have participation. At that, so she testified, Fischer became angry and said, "over my dead body. I will still control everything that goes on in this company." Mrs. Belmonte testified that Fischer said the Respondent was making changes and that things were going to be different. When Mrs. Belmonte commented that it was a little bit late for changes, Fischer responded, so she testified, "It's never too late. The store will close before the Union gets in ." Mrs. Cobb testified that at the meeting she attended no mention was made of the Union. 6. Theodore Czar Czar, section manager of men's sportswear at the time of the election, and whose supervisory status is THE M. O'NEIL COMPANY in issue, several times shortly before the election spoke to Mrs. Halachoff about the Union. Mrs. Halachoff's uncontradicted testimony is that Czar "pointed out that we would lose all our benefits and our retirement fund and they would take away our discount." Czar did not testify. The Respondent denies that Czar occupied a su- pervisory position at the times here material. In the representation proceeding the Board determined that, with respect to section managers, the evidence "is inconclusive as to their supervisory status" and permitted such persons to vote subject to challenge. Before me, the only testimony regarding Czar's status was that given by Mrs. Halachoff, who had worked with Czar for the first year and a half of her employment, a period ending about 3 years before the hearing herein. So far as appears, Czar con- tinued in the same position until about 3 "months before the hearing, when he was promoted. Mrs. Halachoff testified that Czar scheduled work hours and lunch periods, and assigned work in his depart- ment. He had an office in the department and ap- parently did not work on the selling floor. He recommended hiring of employees, and employees took up complaints regarding hours or fellow work- ers with him. Mrs. Halachoff also testified that Czar reprimanded employees. I credit the testimony of Mrs. Halachoff respecting Czar's duties and find that he was a supervisor within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(11) of the Act. B. Conclusions Upon a consideration of the entire record and having endeavored carefully to observe the demeanor of the witnesses as they were testifying, I have come to the conclusion that on the whole the witnesses for the General Counsel are to be credited. In some instances, the supervisory person- nel involved in the conversations admitted that the subjects of loss of discounts and benefits had been discussed, although in a somewhat different manner. The employees generally impressed me as sincere individuals, all had been employed for sub- stantial periods and were still employed at the time they testified, and they did not appear to me to be motivated by a desire to color their testimony. With respect to the conversation Mrs. Wildroudt and Mrs . Belmonte had with Brown , the branch store coordinator, I find that Brown urged that the new management should be given a chance and warned that employees would lose their discounts and the store would close if the Union came in. Brown admittedly told the women that employees could lose their discounts and other benefits if the Union came in ; I do not believe he added the qualification that this would come about only as the result of negotiations. I further find that Brown sought to emphasize the likely loss of discounts by stating, as he admitted, that in Kaufman's store in 633 Pittsburgh organized employees did not receive a discount whereas those not represented by a union did receive discounts. I am also persuaded that he underscored the possibility of the store closing if the Union came in by his reference to the closing of Stern's in New York City, which was organized. On election day, I find, Brown told Mrs. Halachoff and a group with her, in reference to the Barberton store and the progress of the election there, that the Respondent would close that store. I conclude that by these statements of Brown threatening loss of benefits and store closure if the Union were suc- cessful, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I credit the testimony of Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Cobb that Mrs. Neff, divisional manager, stated to them that if the Union won the election employees would lose their discounts and could lose other benefits, and, with reference to part-time em- ployees who were present on one occasion, said that their hours would be cut as the Respondent could not afford to meet all the Union's demands. I also credit the testimony of Mrs. Rittenhouse that during the week before the election Mrs. Neff stated to her and two other employees that discounts would or could be taken away and that the store would probably close. These statements, I am convinced, were coercive and therefore viola- tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Supervisor Tofanelli, during the 2 weeks before the election, told Mrs. Smith, as the latter testified, that employees were making a mistake in wanting the Union and that they thereby could lose their discount and other benefits. While Tofanelli testified he could not recall making any statement to Mrs. Smith relative to the discount and denied making any statement about other benefits, in view of his admitted statement that "whenever the occa- sion arose" he told other employees that there was a "possibility that the discount would be lost or reduced from 20 to 10 percent," I believe Mrs. Smith and find that he did make the statement to her as she testified. Accordingly, I find that thereby the Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. With respect to Mrs. Lower, the supervisor of the ready-to-wear department at the time of the elec- tion, I find, in agreement with the testimony of the employees who related conversations with her,4 that Mrs. Lower discussed the Union and the elec- tion with them and stated that employees would lose their discount and other benefits if the Union were selected, and questioned Mrs. Cardini as to her attendance at union meetings and who had at- tended. In so finding, I note that Mrs. Lower ad- mitted telling employees that loss of the discount "was a possibility," although she allegedly qualified this comment by stating she told them loss of discount was not "something I knew as a definite thing." Even on her version, I think it plain that she ' Mrs Halachoff, Mrs Wildroudt, and Mrs Cardini 634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD clearly implied that the discount would be lost if the Union were selected. Accordingly, I find that by Mrs. Lower's statements to the effect that selection of the Union would mean loss of the discount privilege and other benefits, and her questioning of Mrs. Cardini regarding her own and other em- ployees' attendance at union meetings, the Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The testimony of Mrs. Halachoff is uncon- tradicted, and credited, that Section Manager Czar told her that by bringing in the Union employees would lose their benefits, the retirement fund, and their discounts. Inasmuch as I have found that Czar occupied a supervisory position, these remarks are attributable to the Respondent and are violative of Section 8(a)(1). The only directly coercive statement attributed to Fischer, vice president of branch stores, who conducted some 15 meetings of employees in groups of about 10 during the week before the elec- tion, was by Mrs. Belmonte. She testified Fischer, in response to her remark that it was a little bit late to make changes or improvements, said "It's never too late. The store will close before the Union gets in." Fischer denied saying that the store would close if the Union won the election. I am persuaded that Fischer did not make the remark about store closing attributed to him by Mrs. Belmonte. Mrs. Halachoff attended the same meeting as Mrs. Belmonte. Significantly, Mrs. Halachoff did not at- tribute such a remark to Fischer, although she did testify in some detail as to what he said. Had Fischer threatened that the store would close be- fore the Union would get in, I think it highly unlike- ly that Mrs. Halachoff would have failed to testify to that effect. Moreover, considering the testimony of Fischer and employees regarding what was discussed at these meetings, and the fact that I was favorably impressed with Fischer as a witness, I conclude he made no threats of loss of benefits or closing of the store in the event employees selected the Union. Nor do I agree with General Counsel's contention that the meetings themselves were a device used by the Respondent "to lure its em- ployees into airing their grievances, so that Respon- dent could make veiled promises concerning their complaints," and therefore constituted conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1). Although discussion was invited by Fischer concerning existing benefits which he described, the evidence as a whole does not persuade me that Fischer went any further than to say in substance that the benefits provided by the Respondent were good, that the Respondent was constantly improving benefits, and that he did not believe the Union could do more in this regard. Moreover, the complaint did not contain an allega- tion to this effect but, with respect to Fischer, was confined to two matters : alleged unlawful interroga- tion and a threat to close the store if the Union became the collective-bargaining representative. Accordingly, I do not find that by conducting these meetings the Respondent violated the Act in any respect. Finally, it should be noted that, although the complaint alleged that each of the six supervisors here involved "interrogated employees of Respond- ent, concerning their membership in, activities on behalf of, and sympathy for, the Union," the only incident of unlawful interrogation established by the record was that involving Mrs. Lower, found above. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent found to con- stitute unfair labor practices as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, in- timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take appropriate affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. REPORT ON OBJECTIONS The objections to the election encompass all of the conduct of the Respondent found in section III, B, above, to constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Tothat extent, therefore, I find the ob- jections to have merit and I shall accordingly recommend that the election held on May 22, 1969, be set aside and that the Regional Director conduct a new election at such time as he deems appropriate. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in these proceedings, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The May Department Stores Company d/b/a The M. O'Neil Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Retail Clerks International Association, Local 698, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with loss of their discount privileges and other employee benefits, reduced hours of work for part-time employees, and closing of its store if they selected the Union as bargaining representative, and by questioning em- THE M. O'NEIL COMPANY ployees concerning attendance at meetings of the Union. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. In other respects alleged in the complaint the Respondent has not committed any unfair labor practices. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case , it is recommended that The May De- partment Stores Company d/b/a The M. O'Neil Company, Stow, Ohio, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees with loss of their discount privileges and other employee benefits, reduced hours of work for part-time employees, and closing its store if they select the Union as bar- gaining representative , or by questioning employees concerning attendance at meetings of the Union. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its store in Stow, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it 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 it to in- sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.6 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election held on May 22, 1969, in Case 8-RC-7138, be set aside, and that a new election be held at such time as the Regional Director deems appropriate. ' 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 635 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 Na- uonal Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " I 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 threaten employees with loss of their discount privileges or other employee benefits, reduced hours of work for part-time employees, or closing of the store if they select Retail Clerks International Association, Local 698, AFL-CIO, as collective-bargaining representative, nor will we question employees about their attendance at union meetings. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. THE MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY D/B/A THE M. O'NEIL COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1695 Federal Office Building, 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, Telephone 216-522-3715.