Fashion Fair, Inc.

142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fashion Fair, Inc. and Local 725, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO. Case 25-CA-3000 October 9, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MLMBFRS FANNING AND BROWN On June 6, 1968, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the allegations pertaining thereto be dismissed. Thereafter the Re- spondent filed exceptions to certain portions of the Decision of the Trial Examiner and a supporting brief, the Charging Party filed a brief in answer to the Respondent's exceptions, and the General Counsel filed a brief supporting the Decision of the Trial Examiner. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent here- with. 1 The Trial Examiner found, and for reasons stated in his Decision, we agree, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by issuing warn- ings to employees Berry and Combs because of their union activities. We also agree with the Trial Exam- iner's finding that Respondent's imposition of a more onerous work condition on employee Berry was motivated by antiunion considerations and in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Unlike the Trial Examiner, however, we do not find Respondent's I All dates, unless otherwise indicated are 1967 2 The Union notified Respondent on November 17 that it planned to conduct informational picketing at the Bloomington store On promise and subsequent grant of wage increases to have violated the Act for the following reasons. The facts show that Respondent had been experi- encing difficulties with the local Fire Department because conditions at its store were in violation of the Fire Code. On September 25, 1967,1 the city attorney threatened to condemn Respondent's build- ing as unsafe unless the conditions were remedied Late in October, Fire Inspector Axsom again warned Respondent that, although the Fire Department's standards had been met for a few days, the renewal of certain prior conditions would lead to further action unless corrected within 5 days. Carter was made acting store manager on or about November 9 and immediately called an employee meeting at which he spoke about the conditions at the store which the Fire Department considered objectionable. Carter told the employees that if they would work together and clean up the store he would see what he could do about getting them raises. Thereafter, on several occasions Fire Inspector Axsom inspected the store and gave it interim ratings of "OK." Finally on November 21, Axsom wrote Respondent's president informing him that the Department's recommendations had been com- piled with 2 As promised earlier, Carter on Nov- ember 22, recommended that area Supervisor Greenguard approve raises for those employees who had helped him clean up the store. Greenguard agreed, saying he would visit the store and approve the raises on Monday, November 27. Carter then posted the Fire Department letter on the timeclock, and announced meetings of night shift employees on Friday, November 24, and on the following Monday for employees on the day shift. The Friday meeting was not held because of the picketing but that on Monday was held as scheduled. At the meeting Carter announced that the employees would receive wage increases as promised Other employees, apparently not in attendance were told individually they would receive raises. In finding that Respondent had failed to make out its defense to the allegation that the wage increases were timed to induce employees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union, the Trial Examiner relied on both the November 2 letter from Respondent to the Fire Department stating the store was up to standards set by the Fire Department, and the interim ratings of "O.K." given the store by the Department on November 8, 10, 16, and 20. He therefore concluded there was time prior to the picketing for Carter to implement his promises and that the timing of the promise on November 27 was November 24, it began picketing and promptly launched its organiza- tional campaign. 173 NLRB No. 28 FASHION FAIR, INC. 143 inspired by the picketing and Respondent's knowl- edge of the organizational activity. Inspector Axsom of the Fire Department testified, however, that these interim ratings did not necessarily mean all conditions at the store met the Department's standards. Addi- tionally, the record reveals that Respondent was not formally notified that the Department was satisfied with overall conditions until November 21. We find, under all the circumstances, that Respondent's promises and grants of wage increases were in implementation of its preorganization campaign promises which were contingent upon employee cooperation in alleviating conditions found objection- able by the Fire Department. As the Fire Department did not grant formal clearance to Respondent until after the Union informed Respondent that an organi- zation drive was imminent, and since Respondent took immediate steps to grant the increases upon receiving clearance from the Fire Inspector, we cannot find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Respond- ent failed to establish its defense that the increases were based upon factors other than the then pending organizational activity. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the allegation that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by promising and granting wage increases. 2 The Trial Examiner found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recognize the Union as majority represent- ative in the appropriate unit. In so finding, the Trial Examiner reasoned that Respondent's 8(a)(1) and (3) violations were calculated to prevent the Union from gaining additional strength, to dissipate whatever strength the Union had, and to undermine the Union's status as majority representative. We disagree. Having reversed the Trial Examiner's 8(a)(1) finding based upon the wage increases, the remaining unlaw- ful conduct attributable to Respondent is limited to the warnings issued Combs and Berry and the instruction to Berry that she no longer sit while working. These incidents occurred about 1 to 2 weeks before the Union made its demand for recognition. Considering their timing, character, and the condition under which they occurred, we find this conduct, though unlawful, was not so flagrant or extensive that it must necessarily have had as its objective the destruction of the Union's majority.3 Accordingly, we find that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of establishing that Respondent's refusal to bargain violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and, accordingly, we shall dismiss that allegation of the complaint.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Fashion Fair, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Issuing warnings and threatening employees with discharge and imposing more arduous working conditions on employees because of their union sentiments and activities. (b) Discouraging membership in the Union or in any other labor organization of its employees by imposing more arduous working conditions, or in any related manner discriminating against them in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Post at its offices and store at Bloomington, Indiana, copies of the attached Notice marked "Ap- pendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Re- spondent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicious places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith 3 In view of our dismissal of the 8 (a)(5) allegation in the complaint, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Trial Examiner's findings on issues related to the union 's majority status 4 Hammond & Irving, Incorporated, 154 NLRB 1071, 1073 5 In the event this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em- ployees that: WE WILL NOT issue warnings to employees, threaten them with discharge, or impose more arduous work conditions because of their union sentiments or activities. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 725, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by imposing more arduous working conditions on them or in any like or related manner discriminate against them in regard to hire or tenure 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of employment , or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter- fere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of Local 725, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , except to the extent provided in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. FASHION FAIR, INC (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone 317-633-8921. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE A DOWNING, Trial Examiner: This proceeding brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was heard at Bloomington, Indiana, on April 8, 9, and 10, 1968, pursuant to due notice The complaint which was issued on February 29, 1968, on charges filed on December 14, 1967, and February 26, 1968, alleged in substance that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act by various specified acts of interference, restraint, coercion and discrimination in November and December 1967, and by refusing on and after December 8 to bargain with the Union as the majority representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. Respondent answered denying said unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Respondent, an Ohio corporation, operates some 17 dis- count department stores in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, including the store involved herein at Bloomington, Indiana. Respondent sells annually at retail at its Bloomington store goods valued in excess of $500,000 and purchases annually from extrastate points goods valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent is therefore engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction and Issues During the past several years the Union has engaged in a campaign to organize the employees in many of Respondent's 17 stores but has been successful in obtaining recognition in only one, at New Albany, Indiana The campaign at Bloom- ington began as an outgrowth of informational picketing which was conducted on the weekends of November 24-26 and December 1-2, 1967, and of which Respondent was notified on November 17 1 A formal request to bargain was made on December 11 and was refused on December 16 on the ground of good-faith doubt of majority Aside from the refusal-to-bargain issues, which include also a question as to the Union's actual majority, there is in issue conduct by Store Manager James F Carter involving alleged warnings and threats of reprisals in relation to union activities, of promises and grants of economic benefits, and of discrimi- nation through providing less employment and assigning more arduous job tasks to Patti Combs and Clara Berry. B Interference, Restraint and Coercion Respondent was notified in advance by the Union that it intended to engage in informational picketing at the Blooming- ton store and the word was relayed to Store Manager James F. Carter who testified that he in turn informed a few employees When the picketing began on November 24, Carter also learned promptly that the Union was engaged as well in an organiza- tional campaign Thus Loris (Mike) Francke testified that on Saturday night after the picketing started he and James Owen informed Carter that they had had coffee with Charles E. Mercer (the Union's organizing director), who was trying to get them to sign cards. Carter stated that he thought the store had more to offer and could be run better under management the way it was. Francke testified further that 3 or 4 days after he signed an authorization card on November 28, Carter informed him he was doing a good job and Carter would see about getting him a raise. Carter admitted that after the picketing began some of the employees spoke to him about the Union and about having signed cards Owen and Francke were two of those and he told them he felt that Fashion Fair had more to offer but that they were free to do as they pleased. The evidence is also undisputed that on Monday following the first weekend of picketing (November 27) Carter called a meeting of employees at which he repeated the statement that Fashion Fair had more to offer than a union and announced that he was seeking approval from the Company for certain raises which he had requested for employees. However the context of the latter announcement is in some dispute, it will 1 All events herein occurred in 1967 unless otherwise specified. FASHION FAIR, INC. be more fully adverted to in summarizing, infra, the evidence which Respondent offered in defense of the promised raises The evidence established that Carter followed through on the matter of the promised raises . Beverly Clark, for example, testified that she attended another meeting of employees at which Carter announced that he had obtained approval from his district supervisor, Greenguard, for certain raises which the employees would receive in their next week's paycheck Clark received the raise as promised Alice Watson testified that some 2 weeks after the employee meeting Carter informed her and Suzanne Sipes that the "office" had approved raises for them and thereafter Watson received her raise. Summaries of Respondent's records received by stipulation reflected that during the last 5 weeks of 1967, Respondent gave a total of 20 raises as follows. Eight on December 2, one on December 9, one on December 14, eight on December 23, and two on December 30. The records reflected similarly that in the first 47 weeks of 1967, Respondent gave a total of 38 raises. Respondent did not substantially contest the foregoing evidence and rested its defense mainly on Carter's testimony that the raises were given in fulfillment of a promise he made around November 9, to try to obtain raises for the employees if they would cooperate with him in helping to clean up conditions in the store concerning which the fire department was threatening to close the store. Carter was made acting manager of the store early in November and around November 9, he called an employee meeting in which among other things he referred to the problems with the fire department and made the statement above referred to. Though the General Counsel's witnesses testified generally that they could not recall that Carter made any promises of raises in meetings before the picketing began, James Owen corroborated Carter's testimony that Carter informed the employees that if they would work together and clean up the store he would see what he could do to get raises for them. Similar testimony was given on cross-examination by General Counsel's witnesses Alice Watson, Patti Combs and Clara Berry. I therefore credit Carter's testimony concerning the November 9 meeting. Carter testified further that for the next 2 weeks inspectors from the fire department came in daily, but that on November 21, he received a letter from the department which stated that the store had complied with all recommendations of the department. Thereupon Carter called Greenguard, his district supervisor, reported receipt of the letter, and recommended that Greenguard approve "a lot of raises" for employees who had helped him clean up the store and who were underpaid. Greenguard replied that he would be there Monday to approve the raises. Thereupon Carter posted the letter over the timeclock and later put up a notice calling a store meeting for his employees for Friday evening for the night shift and 9 o'clock Monday for the day help. The Friday meeting was not held because of the picketing but the Monday meeting was held as previously referred to. The General Counsel offered in refutation the testimony of Chester L. Axsom, inspector of the fire department, and the records of that department which established the following Respondent's difficulties with the fire department which existed for some months reached a climax before November 1. On September 25, the city attorney threatened to condemn the store as unsafe unless Respondent remedied conditions of noncompliance with the fire code and on October 30, Axsom 145 wrote Respondent warning it that though its standards were met for a few days the renewal of certain prior conditions would lead to further action unless corrected within 5 days. On November 2, Respondent's president wrote Axsom assuring him that necessary steps had been taken to rectify the situation and that the manager had already informed him that the conditions to which Axsom called attention had been corrected. Axsom's personal inspections made thereafter on November 8, November 10, November 16 and November 20, bore out Respondent's representations concerning compliance, and Axsom noted in his inspection report under each date that conditions were "O.K." On November 21, Axsom wrote Respondent's president informing him that Carter had com- plied with all his recommendations. That was the letter which Carter posted on the bulletin board on or about November 22, and which he followed with the notice calling employee meetings for Friday afternoon and Monday morning The General Counsel also calls attention to the following evidence concerning the promising of a raise to Loris Francke who was hired on November 22 On November 28, Francke signed an authorization card in the Huddle Restaurant in the presence of employee Sipes and Union Representative Mercer. Carter came in while they were there, ordered something to eat, and remained until after Francke left. A few days later Carter informed Francke that the latter was doing a good job and Carter would see about getting him a raise Carter made no denial of the foregoing on direct examination and when questioned on cross concerning what part Francke had played in clearing up the store for the fire department, testified that Francke got goods out of the aisles and put out merchandise as it came in. When Carter's attention was called to the fact that Francke was not hired until November 22, he denied that he ever promised Francke a raise. As is seen, Carter at first attempted to credit Francke with a part in rectifying the situation of which the fire department complained, he made no attempt to deny the promise of a raise until reminded that Francke was not hired until after the situation was fully cleared up I therefore credit Francke's testimony. Carter's remaining conduct related to alleged discriminatory treatment accorded to Patti Combs and Clara Berry and will be considered in Section C, infra CONCLUDING FINDINGS As is seen the evidence is undisputed that in the immediate setting of the picketing and with knowledge that the Union was also engaged in an organizing campaign Respondent represented to employees that it had more to offer than the Union and announced in employee meetings that wage increases were being granted. Other employees were informed individually during the ensuing week (as Carter admitted) that they were to get raises and eight actually received them in their next paychecks. Additional raises during the month brought the total to 20 as compared with only some 38 during the preceding 11 months. Respondent's defense was that it acted only to fulfill Carter's promise of November 9 to see what he could do to get raises for the employees if they would help him clean up the conditions of which the fire department was complaining That defense was exploded on rebuttal by evidence that Respondent had complied fully with the department's recommendations 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD prior to November 9 and that it remained in full compliance throughout the remainder of the year Carter's claims of daily inspe..tions and of continuing difficulties were wholly dis- proved, and it was not until the picketing began and he learned also of the organizational attempts that he took action in claimed implementation of his prior promise Carter's testimony was further discredited by his attempt to assign to Francke a role in rectifying the situation and by his promise of a raise to Francke though the latter was not employed until after full compliance with the fire depart- ment's recommendations. Furthermore, if Carter were genu- inely interested in rewarding the employees for cleaning up the store, there was more than ample time for him to have initiated his recommendations before the picketing began. I therefore conclude and find on the entire evidence that Respondent failed to establish its defense. I find to the contrary that Carter's promises of raises on November 27, and later were inspired by the picketing and by knowledge of the organizational movement and that the raises were announced, promised and granted to induce the employees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union NL R B. v. Exchange Parts Co, 375 U.S. 405, 409-410, Kellwood Company, Southern Division, 170 NLRB No. 84 By such conduct Respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. C Discrimination Patti Combs and Clara Berry were among the first employ- ees to sign authorization cards and were the most active in soliciting other employees, for only they were called-aside from Mercer-as authenticating witnesses on cards obtained by solicitors of other employees. I find on the basis of the evidence set forth below that Respondent was aware of their prounion sentiments. Both Combs and Berry testified that their work had not been criticized before the union activity began Berry testified that a week before the picketing Carter praised her for doing a good job and stated he was recommending her for a 10 cent raise. Combs testified that on November 28, Carter told her she was doing a good job and stated he would see if he could get her a 10 cent raise. In the meantime when the picketing began Berry passed out to customers at Carter's request handbills which declared that the employees were not on strike. When later called back by Carter to do so again, Berry did not comply. Though she did not inform Carter directly of her refusal, she told a couple of employees that she refused to pass them out, and she was not again requested to do so. As Carter himself made the request of Berry, it may be inferred that he learned of her refusal to comply with his direction. On November 29, Combs, Berry and Jerome Games had lunch with Union Representative Mercer at Woolworth's lunch counter (near the store). All four of them testified that Carter came in, ordered something to dunk at the counter , and left. They all saw him and he looked at them. When Combs and Berry returned to the store they were immediately called separately to Carter's office. Combs testi- fied that Carter informed her she was not doing a good job, that he was going to put her name in a little book as a first warning, and that the third warning would mean automatic termination. Combs inquired what was wrong with the drug department (in which she worked) and Carter mentioned nothing specifically other than "overall drug department" and that sales were down. Berry testified that Carter told her that her work was slacking up, her reports were late, she was getting grouchy with customers, and that this would be her first warning. He stated that he was putting her under Harris, the assistant manager, who would be watching her and who would make reports to Carter about her work. Carter also informed her that she was not working on a "sit down" job and that she was not to sit anymore when she worked Prior to that time Berry sat some 15 to 20 percent of her time and was never instructed not to do so. Martha Evans, who spent some 2 or 3 hours a day helping Berry with her work, testified that she and Berry sat for a part of the time while doing certain portions of the work and that she had never been cautioned or warned not to sit down. Berry testified further that around December 5, Carter called her to the office again and complained of her delay in getting out her "lay-away" report. Though Berry explained that it was due to the fact that there were no punted forms on hand and that the forms had to be written out, Carter told her that that was her second warning and that the next one would not be a warning Answering Berry's inquiries, Carter admitted that he had not ordered more printed forms and had not spoken to any of the other girls who also worked on the report. Though the complaint alleged and the General Counsel also attempted to show that Combs and Berry were also dis- criminated against by changing their lunch hours to separate times, Combs admitted that her own lunch hour was changed at her request when she told Carter she did not want to eat with Berry. Finally there was evidence, confirmed by Carter' s testi- mony, that beginning with the week ending December 9, Carter cut the hours worked by Combs and Berry by scheduling them to report a half hour later than usual and by giving them a day off at the end of the week. Combs testified that Carter informed her the cut was made because of a shortage on his payroll. Respondent's evidence raised slight question concerning the treatment accorded to Combs and Berry as set forth above but went mainly to the point of knowledge, to establishing "cause" and to negativing a discriminatory motivation. On the knowledge issue Carter denied that Combs once told him she signed a card and denied as well that he saw Combs and Berry having lunch with Mercer just before he called them to his office. Though I credit Carter 's denial over Comb's contrary testimony concerning the card (which was contra- dicted by her pretrial affidavit), I do not credit his denial of the mutually corroborative testimony of four opposing wit- nesses concerning the encounter at luncheon. Insisting, however, that the latter incident did not establish knowledge, Respondent argues further that there was no showing that Carter knew or had reason to know who Mercer was or that he was a union organizer. That contention ignores wholly the evidence concerning Mercer's presence on the picket line and the undenred testimony of Francke that he and Owen discussed with Carter early in the picketing Mercer's efforts to persuade them to sign authorization cards. Admitting that he reprimanded Combs and Berry about their work, Carter testified that in Combs ' case it was because she was not putting the drugs out on display, was talking to FASHION FAIR, INC 147 customers too much and was not getting her lob done In fact Carter testified that after becoming manager he spoke to Combs every day concerning her performance, informing her that he was expecting improvement, but admitted that he never informed Combs of any disciplinary action, never warned her she might be laid off and never called her in previously to give her any warning. He admitted further that he "might have" told Combs he was marking her name in a book. Admitting also that the office incident was the first warning he gave Berry, Carter testified that he "got on" Berry several times about her bad work. As for the lay-away report concerning which he gave Berry her second warning, Carter admitted that it was Bernice Lankford's regular job to get it up and that he did not speak to any of the other girls about it. Carter denied that he promised either Combs or Berry a raise , Combs because she had not been there long enough 2 and Berry because she was sick a lot and was not getting the job done Though Carter also denied that he told Berry she was to stand to do her work, he admitted that Harris, the assistant store manager, had spoken to her about standing, a require- ment which under the testimony of Evans and Berry had not previously been imposed. As for the reduction in hours, Carter testified that in the week ending December 2, he exceeded his payroll budget by $139 and that he accordingly adjusted the schedule for the following weeks by reducing the hours of Combs and Berry as well as those of several other employees Combs was included because she was a relatively new employee and was not doing a good job at the time Berry was included because she had previously asked for time off, had a record for tardiness and frequently reported with sloppy dress and appearance 3 Carter admitted that he hired new employees during the following weeks but testified that they were night cashiers and that none of them was doing any work which Combs and Berry were doing Concluding Findings On the foregoing record I conclude and find that Carter became fully apprised by the luncheon encounter of the union sentiments of Combs and Berry regardless of his knowledge or lack of knowledge before that time Furthermore Carter's spontaneous reaction reflected a disposition to retaliate and to seek immediate retribution. The measure of Carter's credibility was manifest both in denying that he saw Berry and Combs with Mercer and in his specious explanations of how he came to act just at that time. Thus though the job performances of the two girls had been consistently bad under his testimony Carter admittedly had not warned either of disciplinary action and had called neither of them to his office Indeed the record, including Carter's testimony, contained no reasonable explanation for the timing of Carter's conduct save for the luncheon encounter which immediately preceded it I conclude on the entire evidence that Carter's conduct was sparked by that encounter and was intended as a demonstration of displeasure to discourage them from further adherence to the Union The later warning to Barry was plainly a continuation of Carter's earlier treatment and was an obvious attempt to build a record against her of warnings preparatory to discharge I therefore conclude and find that by warning and threatening Combs and Berry with discharge under the circumstances found above Respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and that by imposing upon Berry the requirement that she stand at all times while working, Respondent imposed more arduous working condi- tions and thereby discriminated in regard to conditions of employment to discourage adherence to or membership in the Union. I find, however, that the General Counsel failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent discrimi- nated against Combs and Berry by changing their lunch hour or by reducing their hours of work Combs' testimony left the allegation about the lunchtime change without support. As for the reduction in hours, the General Counsel failed to refute Respondent's evidence that the work schedules were cut in adjustment to the payroll budget and that a number of other employees were affected Furthermore Respondent's records showed that following the week ending December 9,4 Combs' total weekly hours were at normal levels. In Berry's case the reasons which Carter assigned for selecting her (tardiness, requests for time off, etc.) appeared reasonable on the face of the entire record. Though Respondent admittedly hired new employees after reducing the work schedules, the General Counsel made no attempt to refute Carter's testimony that the new help was hired as night cashiers and not as day employees to do the type of work which was done by Combs and Berry D. The Refusal to Bargain 1 The request and the refusal On Monday, December 11, Carter received in the mail an undated form letter in which the Union claimed to represent a majority of the employees at Respondent's Bloomington store and requested recognition and a meeting for bargaining at which the Union would prove its majority status by a card check to be conducted by some neutral third party Carter immediately called Lass in Cincinnati, read the letter to him, and was directed to forward the letter to Lass Lass also directed Carter to write the Union the following letter over his signature as store manager This is to advise you that I have received your letter of 12/9/67. Since I am not authorized on your demand I have forwarded your letter to our office in Cincinnati to the vice president Mr Lass who handles these matters It was stipulated that Mercer would testify that on or about December 8, he mailed simultaneously to Carter at Blooming- ton and Lass at Cincinnati form letter requests to bargain concerning which Carter testified. Lass testified that he received his copy of that letter around December 13, and that he answered it by his letter of December 16, with a refusal to recognize the Union because of "a good faith doubt that your 2 Compare , however, the promise of a raise to Francke who had an even shorter period of employment 3 Berry had a second job on which she worked as late as midnight and she admitted that with two jobs on her hands she "wouldn't have minded" the opportunity for reporting later although she "just didn't expect it " 4 The General Counsel concedes there was a substantial overall decrease in hours worked in that week 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD organization represents a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit." Lass' letter continued as follows Since 1959 Fashion Fair has received many similar demands for recognition from various local unions of the Retail Clerks In all but one of these instances the claim of majority was disproved by an NLRB election or by the Union merely abandoning its claim It concluded with the suggestion that the Union avail itself of the election procedures of the NLRB. On the foregoing record I conclude and find that the request to bargain was actually received by Respondent on December 11, when Carter read the request to Lass, and that the request was refused on December 16 2. The constituency of the unit The identities of the employees who constituted the unit herein (see Conclusion of Law No. 3, infra), were established by Respondent's letter of January 29, 1968, to the Regional Director, with exceptions now to be noted. Listed were the names of some 42 employees, four of whom (Debra Morrow, Charlene Pocock, Susan Pratt, and Mary Purtlebough) were stipulated to be excluded as seasonal employees. There remained in issue George Bayne, Jr., and Cheryl Treadway whose names were not listed but whom the General Counsel contended should be included.5 Bayne was hired around November 11, and signed an authorization card on November 30 He last worked on December 8, but was troubled with a bad back and did not return to work after that. Bayne did not know on December 8, that he would not return and told no one that he was quitting or was not coming back, and though he saw Carter in a restaurant a day or so later, he told Carter only that he was sick. In fact Bayne did not decide until about 3 days after he left the job that he was not going back to it and then he did not inform anyone of his decision. No evidence was offered that Respondent took any action to terminate Bayne before it received the request to bargain. On the foregoing record I conclude and find that Bayne is properly to be included in the unit as of December 11. Cheryl Treadway was employed from January through April of 1967, and was rehired around October 23. She testified that she was laid off around the first of November by Assistant Manager Ball, who informed her that Carter directed him to lay her off because of a payroll shortage but that it was not to be permanent and that he would call her when the payroll was increased. Ball left the store shortly thereafter. Though Treadway frequently visited the store and saw Carter, she never inquired whether there was work for her, even during the Christmas season when she knew that other employees were being hired. Carter testified that he himself made the decision to discharge Treadway, that he directed Ball to fire her when she went home at 5 o'clock on November 11, and that he had no intention of ever rehiring her or recalling her. On the foregoing record I conclude and find that Treadway was terminated on November 11, and was not an employee at the time Respondent received the Union's request to bargain. 5 Though Respondent at first contended that Dorothy Moore should be excluded , its present view is that she was properly included but that I therefore conclude and find that on December 11, when Respondent received the request to bargain the unit consisted of the 39 employees, whose names are listed in Appendix A hereto attached. 3. The Union's majority The General Counsel offered in evidence authorization cards signed by 26 of the employees whose names are listed on Appendix A hereto and which bear the designation (C) thereon. Respondent does not attack the validity of the authorizations signed by 14 of those employees and I conclude and find on the basis of the testimony in the record that the cards signed by the following employees constitute valid authorizations George Bayne, Jr., Clara Berry, Barbara Chambers, Iva Chambers, Beverly Clark, Patti Combs, Stephen Crum, Loris (Mike) Francke, Linda Hickey, George Hunter, Marjorie Miller, Sherry Pfafflin, Suzanne Sipes, and Christine Waldnp. In issue are the authorizations signed by the remaining 12 employees, Dorothy Moore, Alice Watson, Jerome Games, Martha Evans, David Doyle, Phyllis Morganett, Steven Chambers, Jeannette Meadows, Edith Stewart, Glodene Waldnp, James Owen, and Marilyn Owen, who will be considered in the order named. In the case of Dorothy Moore Respondent does not question the original signing as constituting a valid authonza- tion but argues that after she signed the card she quit her employment and that she never reaffirmed the card upon being rehired on December 11. It contends that her act of quitting terminated as well the authorization of the Union to represent her and that it was necessary for her to reaffirm the authorization before her card can be counted toward the alleged majority I reject that contention which is not supported by a citation of any authority. The card which Moore signed authorized the Union to act as her collective-bargaining representative in her employment with Respondent She was an employee on December 11, when the Union made its request to bargain and she had not in the meantime undertaken to withdraw or revoke the earlier authorization In attaching the validity of Alice Watsons card Respondent assigns a single sentence from her entire testimony to the effect that she was left with the impression that if a certain number of employees signed cards there would be a vote on whether or not the store would go union. Watson, a high school graduate authenticated her own card testifying that she kept it for a while after Patti Combs handed it to her and that she read it, filled it out, and signed it before returning it to Combs Denying at first on cross-examinations that Combs said to her the effect of signing the card was to get an election, Watson continued that she did not remember exactly what Combs said but that, " [M] y knowledge about the card was that if I signed that card it meant the Union would be representing the employees and that later on if they got a certain number that there would be a direct vote whether or not the store would go Union." Watson added, however, that she recalled nothing that Combs said which gave her that impression and did not know exactly how she was left with it. her authorization card should not be counted toward the Union's majority . See section 3, infra FASHION FAIR, INC Jerome Games, a student in the 12th grade, testified that he kept his card for a while after Combs gave it to him, that he read it, filled it out in part and signed it before returning it to Combs Though Games claimed he understood what the card meant, he testified that his understanding was that it was to represent the employees in a vote for the Union and that is what Combs told him and that was why he signed it On further examination Games testified that Combs told him the card "was to represent us in a vote whether the Union would represent us in a vote. If a certain percent signed these cards there would be a vote held in the store to decide . whether or not the Union would get in." Games' card was originally authenticated by Combs who testified only that she gave Games the card and that he later returned the signed card to her. The card of Martha Evans was received on the authentica- tion of Patti Combs, who testified that she gave the card to Evans and that Evans later returned the signed card to her. Evans herself when cross-examined by Respondent's counsel testified that a union representative told her that, "[I] f we had a percentage of the people to sign it then we would take a vote as to whether we wanted the Union to represent us and that we was under no obligation to the card" or by signing the card. Evans, who had had 12 years of schooling, admitted that she read the card before she signed it, that she discussed it with Combs and Clara Berry and also discussed it some five times with her husband, who was a member of the Union at another plant. The card of David Doyle was received on the authentication' of Patti Combs, who testified that Doyle had refused to sign a card for Mercer until he talked with Combs. Combs thereafter talked with him and Doyle signed the card and gave it back to her. Doyle himself when cross-examined by Respondent's coun- sel testified that Mercer told him the card was, "To represent us and to help us," and if over half of the employees signed, then "we could go ahead from there and later on to vote for a Union." Doyle, an 11th grade student, testified that he also talked with Patti Combs and with the vice principal at high school about whether he should sign the card and that the latter advised him to consider the matter of what better working conditions might be obtained and whether increased wages might amount to more than the Union dues he would pay Doyle admitted that he knew that by signing the card he was helping to get the Union in. Phyllis Morganett testified that she signed her card at the request of Clara Berry and Patti Combs who told her that if they got enough people to sign they could take a vote on whether or not to get a union in and that it did not mean that she was for or against the Union. Morganett filled out the card and signed it without reading it, taking for granted what they said. She had discussed with Combs and Berry on prior occasions the possibility of higher pay and better working conditions if the Union got in and she also discussed the Union with her husband, who was himself a union member Mor- ganett admitted that she knew by signing the card she was helping to get a union in but repeated that she was informed it did not mean she was for or against the Union. 6 Both General Counsel and Union counsel claimed impeachment of Waldrip's testimony by an unsigned statement which Attorney Fisher took from her and which was received in evidence . Further examination of the document , however, discloses that it was only a sketchy 149 Combs testified that she talked with Morganett several times concerning the Union and the benefits that might be obtained Morganett questioned her among other things as to how the employees could get a union in and Combs explained that there were three ways as she understood it, one by signature check, one by proving a violation against the NLRB, and one by vote Berry in turn denied that she said anything to Morganett about a vote but told her that the card authorized the Union to represent the employees Respondent attacked six additional cards (Steven Cham- bers, Jeannette Meadows, Edith Stewart, Glodene Waldrip, James Owen and Marilyn Owen), which had been received on the authentication of Organizing Director Mercer, by calling the signatories (except Marilyn Owen) as well as Bernice Lankford who was also solicited by Mercer. Chambers testified in part that Mercer told him the card was to show that Mercer had talked with him and that he would like to have a vote on the Union and that if they got a majority to sign the employees would be able to have a vote on whether they wanted a union or not. On cross-examination, however, Chamber testified that Mercer had discussed the Union and union benefits with him on an earlier home visit and had shown him contracts with other stores as well as the union magazine, "It Pays to Belong." Chambers then informed Mercer that before deciding he wanted to talk the matter over with his father, who was a member of IBEW at another plant. He later showed the card to his father, who told him about the benefits of union membership but told him the decision was up to him. Jeannette Meadows testified that Mercer told her that by signing the card she would be under no obligation and that there would be a secret vote on whether the employees were for or against a union. On cross-examination Meadows testified that Mercer discussed union benefits with her, showed her the union magazine and read some of the sections to her She testified further that she read the card and willingly signed it Edith Stewart testified that she was told by a union representative (whom she was unable to identify as Mercer) that if the Union got enough cards signed then it would come to a vote for a union and that she signed because the union representative stated they needed a majority in order to get a vote for or against a union. On cross-examination Stewart admitted that Mercer explained to her certain benefits of the Union and that she read the card before she signed it Stewart admitted further that in a prior employment at another plant she had been in favor of the union and had talked in favor of it to other employees. Goldene Waldnp testified that Mercer told her he needed her signature on the card to help get a majority so that the employees could vote on the Union. On cross-examination Waldnp admitted that she read the card before signing it but denied that Mercer gave her a copy of the union magazine or that he read any part of the magazine to her. Waldnp admitted that she had belonged to IBEW when employed at another plan t.6 James Owen testified that he and his wife, Marilyn Sue Owen, signed cards for Mercer in their home after Mercer explained they were under no obligation by signing and that memorandum of Fisher 's rough notes of the interview and that as concerned Mercer's representations it was too indefinite to serve as direct impeachment of Waldrip 's testimony 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD there would still have to be a vote on the Union. On cross-examination Owen admitted that he had talked with Mercer on prior occasions, including one in a restaurant with Mike Francke during the picketing when Mercer explained the benefits and wage increases which might be expected. Owen admitted further that the home visit lasted some 30 or 40 minutes and that Mercer left the union magazine with him. Finally Owen admitted that Mercer on one occasion discussed with him the process by which the employees would vote to ratify a proposed contract and Owen was uncertain whether the percentage figure (51 percent) which Mercer mentioned related to the cards or to the percent needed to ratify a contract. Respondent also called Bernice Lankford, who did not sign a card, for the purpose of establishing a pattern of representa- tions on Mercer's part. Lankford testified that Mercer informed her he needed a certain number of signatures in order to have a vote whether the employees would have a union or not. On cross-examination, however, Lankford admitted that Mercer had talked with her some hour and a half and that he explained to her the three ways by which union representation would be obtained (i.e., a card check by a neutral party, an election conducted by the Board, or a Board order without an election if the Company violated NLRA). Lankford admitted further that Mercer showed her the union booklet and that he read portions of it to her. Mercer, testifying both in chief and on rebuttal, denied that he told any employees the card was only for the purpose of getting a vote or that they were under no obligation when they signed and denied further stating that he wanted the card as a record of his contacts. Mercer testified that he explained that there were three ways by which union representation could be obtained. One was that if 51 percent of the employees signed, recognition might be obtained by a card check but the Company did not have to agree to that, another way was to go through an NLRB election when 30 percent of the employees signed cards; and finally if 51 percent had signed cards and the Company violated the National Labor Relations Act, the Board might order the Company to recognize the union without an election. Mercer also left with each employee (except Barbara Chambers) a copy of the Union's magazine, "It Pays To Belong," which contained further detailed explanations con- cerning the matters which Mercer covered orally. Finally Mercer explained the procedures provided in the Union's constitution for employee ratification of a proposed contract and in that connection read to them the applicable paragraph from the Union constitution, concluding with the sentence, "A majority vote by secret ballot of those present and voting shall be necessary to accept or to reject the proposal " So far as obligation was concerned Mercer testified he informed the employees they were under no obligation to become members of the Union until 30 days after a contract was signed and further that if the NLRB did conduct an election the employees were not obligated to vote for the Union. In addition to the foregoing Mercer testified in specific reference to Respondent's witnesses as follows He left the union booklet with Steven Chambers and explained to him the three ways of getting a union in and also explained the provision for a secret vote by employees on the acceptance or rejection of a proposed contract. Mercer explained to Meadows some of the union benefits and how the employees could get union representation if they desired. He also explained to her the provision in the constitution for a secret vote by the employees on contract ratification. Mercer explained to Edith Stewart the three ways the Union could get in and also read to her the provision in the constitution concerning a secret vote on a contract. Mercer made similar explanations to Glodene Waldnp, telling her also that one way to get a union in was by a vote in a Labor Board election in which the employees would be free to vote. Mercer first explained the use of the authorization to Owen at the restaurant during the picketing and later went to Owen's home where he told Owen and his wife the three ways of getting a union in and also about voting on contract ratification. He left them a copy of the union magazine and went through it with them completely before they signed. Concluding Findings There is little in the above resume which supports Respondent's attack on the validity of any one of the 11 cards in question. The cards themselves contained only a simple, unambiguous authorization of the Union to represent the signatory in matters of collective bargaining, in phrasing which was plainly within the understanding of persons with the schooling which Respondent's employees had The Board has consistently followed the rule that testimony by the signer concerning his subjective intent is irrelevant and, absent clear evidence of misrepresentation, cannot contradict the clear designations expressed in the cards which they sign.7 The Board also continues to follow the rule of Joy Silk Mills v. NL R.B., 185 F.2d 732, 743 (C.A.D.C.), that an employee's thoughts (or afterthoughts) as to why he signed a union card and what he thought the card meant cannot negative the overt action of having signed a card designating the Union as bargaining agent. Dan River Mills Incorporated, 121 NLRB 645, 648. The Board does however look beyond the face of the authorization in cases where the employees are told that the only or sole purpose of the card is to obtain an election or a vote Cumberland Shoe Corporation, 144 NLRB 1268, enfd 351 F.2d 917 (C A 6), Shelby Manufacturing Company, 155 NLRB 464, 466, and cases cited at footnote 4, Sandy's Stores Inc., 163 NLRB No. 95, R W Inc., d/b/a K. Mart Foods, 170 NLRB No 67. But the evidence here fails to show any case in which the employee was informed that the card was to be used only to get an election. Mercer's testimony was that though he referred to an election as one method of obtaining union representation he explained the other two methods and called attention also to the provisions of the Union magazine and the Union constitution. That testimony was substantially con- firmed by Respondent's witnesses Bernice Lankford and James Owen, and there were others who admitted that Mercer either left with them the Union magazine or read from it certain of its provisions. What the entire evidence suggests is that some confusion may have existed on the part of some of the signatories from the detailed explanations which Mercer made concerning the various uses to which the cards could be put and by his 7 Jefferson Wire and Cable Corp, 159 NLRB 1384 , 1394, Dan Howard Manufacturing Company, et al, 158 NLRB 805; Conren Inc, d/b/a Great Scott Supermarket, 156 NLRB 592 , enfd. 368 F.2d 173. FASHION FAIR, INC. reference to (or reading from) the provisions of the constitu- tion concerning a majority vote by employees on contract ratification But the record does not establish that Mercer thereby resorted to misrepresentation or that he deliberately sought to confuse the prospective signatories. It was obvious too that the claimed confusion and/or misunderstanding was greatly exaggerated, for a number of Respondent' s witnesses admitted seeking advice from members of their families (who were union members) or from other persons, and some had previously worked in union plants In such cases it is difficult to conceive that the signatories were under any real misappre- hension concerning the meaning of the simple authorization or concerning Mercer's explanations I therefore conclude and find on the entire evidence that on December 11, the Union held valid authorizations from 26 employees" in a unit of 39 and was thus the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act 4. Good-faith doubt, the appropriateness of a bargaining order Respondent in rejecting the request to bargain in its letter of December 16, rested its claim of good-faith doubt on the following. Since 1959 Fashion Fair,has received many similar demands for recognition from various local unions of the Retail Clerks. In all but one of these instances the claim of majority was disproved by an NLRB election or by the Union merely abandoning its claim. Respondent established the factual correctness of the quoted paragraph by Lass' testimony and by offers of proof No further evidentiary support for the alleged good-faith doubt was offered and though Respondent's brief now refers to a "questionable" majority because of alleged misrepresenta- tion or union created confusion concerning the signing of cards, it made no attempt at the hearing to establish that any of the employees made any such claims to it prior to rejection of the Union's request Carter, Respondent's obvious conduit for such reports, testified to nothing of such a character and to nothing else which was indicative of doubt on his part concerning the Union's majority Respondent's defense thus rests solely on Lass' testimony that, sitting in the Cincinnati office, he doubted the Union's majority because except in one of its stores the Union had been unsuccessful in establishing majority status. It is difficult to perceive how that fact would support a claim of doubt at the Bloomington store, particularly since there was no showing that Lass knew or could have known the extent of the Union's success in signing up the Bloomington employees, and Carter, who by his own admissions learned considerable from the employees, gave no indication that he entertained doubt of the Union's majority claims Furthermore the Union's success at one store itself demonstrated the fallacy of blanket assertions of doubt and established that majority claims could properly be measured and answered only in the light of circumstances at individual stores. But Respondent calls attention to no circumstances at Bloomington which gave rise to any doubt on its part at the time Lass received and rejected the Union's request. Further- 8 I hereby receive in evidence the authorization card of Jerome Combs on which ruling was reserved at the hearing 151 more the Union's request itself proposed a reliable method for resolving the majority question for in requesting a meeting for recognition and bargaining it stated that it would attend "prepared to prove its majority status via a card check conducted by any neutral third party whom we can mutually agree upon " Respondent could easily have resolved its alleged doubt if it had availed itself of that offer, for it would have learned that at Bloomington-as at New Albany-the Union in fact represented a majority of the employees Instead, however, Respondent demonstrated both before and after the request to bargain that its disposition was to forestall the Union and to dissipate its majority Thus immedi- ately upon learning that the Union was engaged in an organizing campaign it announced the granting of a number of increases (thereby substantiating Carter's representations that Respondent indeed had more to offer than the Union) and it warned and threatened Combs and Berry with discharge in retaliation for their union adherence. Following the request Respondent continued its bestowal of wage increases, obvi- ously to influence employee action in choosing a bargaining representative As the Supreme Court recognized in Medo Photo Supply Corp v NLRB, 321 US 678, 686, such action may be "induced by favors bestowed by the employer as well as by his threats or domination " The Court followed that holding in N.L R B. v Exchange Parts Company, 375 U S. 405, pointing out that- The danger inherent in well-timed increases in benefits is the suggestion of a fist inside the velvet glove. 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. Also see Western Cartridge Company v N.L R.B, 134 F 2d 240, 244 (C.A. 7), where the court expressed agreement with the Board that "[I] nterference is no less interference because it is accomplished through allurements rather than coercion, when, as here, the system is employed to stem a tide of organization . " I therefore conclude and find that by refusing to bargain with the Union on and after December 16, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Here (as in Noma Lites Corp , 170 NLRB No. 142) Respondent's unfair labor practices were calculated to prevent the Union from gaining additional strength, to dissipate whatever strength the Union had at the time of the commission of the unfair labor practices, and to undermine the Union's status as majority representative As Respondent's conduct made the holding of a free election impossible, the Board may properly require Respondent to recognize and to bargain with the union Joy Silk Mills v NL R.B, 185 F.2d 722 (C A D C.), N.L R B v Atco-Surgical Supports, Inc., 394 F.2d 659 (C.A. 6) (decided May 10, 1968), N.L.R B. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co, 394 F 2d 711 (C.A. 5) (decided May 6, 1968), and cases there cited. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1). 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. By imposing more arduous working conditions on Clara Berry, Respondent discriminated in regard to conditions of employment to discourage membership in the Union, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 3 All regular full-time and part-time employees employed in Respondent's Bloomington, Indiana, store excluding the store manager, assistant store manager, casuals and/or seasonal employees, guards, confidential employees, professional em- ployees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 4 On December 11, 1967, and continuing to date the Union has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in the above-described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment 5. By refusing to bargain with the Union on and after December 16, 1967, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action outlined below which I find to be necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act For the reasons stated in section D(4), supra, I shall recommend an appropriate bargaining order. Inasmuch as Clara Berry voluntarily quit her employment on December 22, it is unnecessary to provide for an affirmative remedying of the discriminatory treatment accorded her [Recommended Order omitted from publication ] APPENDIX A Employees in Unit-December 11, 1967 (C) George Bayne, Jr (C) George Hunter (C) Clara Berry Eva Ketcham (C) Barbara Chambers Bernice Lankford (C) Iva Chambers (C) Jeanette Meadows (C) Steve Chambers Deloris Miller (C) Beverly Clark (C) Magorie Miller (C) Patti Combs Shirley Comley (C) (C) Phyllis Morganett Dorothy Moore (C) Stephen Crum Beverly Deckard (C) (C) James Owen Marilyn Owen (C) David Doyle (C) Sherry Pfafflin (C) Martha Evans Shirley Fleener Donald Fleener (C) (C) Suzanne Sipes Edith Stewart Irene Stewart (C) Loris (Mike) Francke Shirley Stewart (C) Jerome Games Sandra Ham Aola Hawkins (C) (C) Ramona Stone Christine Waldrip Glodene Waldrip (C) Linda Hickey (C) Alice Watson Linda Welch