Sheridan-Peter Pan Studios, Inc.

SHERIDAN-PETER PAN STUDIOS, INC. Sheridan-Peter Pan Studios, Inc. and Retail Store Employees Union, Local 300, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO. Case 13-CA-8220 January 8, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On August 7, 1968, Trial Examiner Arthur M. Goldberg 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 such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, ; the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in 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. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Sheridan-Peter Pan Studios, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 'We find without merit the Respondent 's allegations of bias on the part of the Trial Examiner. There is no basis for finding bias or partiality existed because the Trial Examiner resolved important factual conflicts arising in this proceeding in favor of the General Counsel 's witnesses. As the Supreme Court has stated , "Total rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself impugn the integrity of a trier of fact ." N.L.R B. v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co. 337 US 656, 659 Moreover, as it is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility except where, as is not the case here, the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces it that the resolutions were incorrect, we find, contrary to the Respondent's contention, no basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credibility findings. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C A 1). TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION 13 ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed on January 17, 1968, by Retail Store Employees Union, Local 300, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union or the Charging Party), the complaint' herein issued on May 1, 1968.' The complaint alleged that Sheridan-Peter Pan Studios, Inc. (herein called the Company or the Respondent), had violated Section,8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), by the unilateral grant of benefit, the promise of benefit if the employees reject the Union, and by other promises or threats. At the hearing General- Counsel amended the complaint to allege that certain interrogation by Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1). Respondent was alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by its discharge of Morris Krugman. Respondent denied all the material allegations of the complaint. All parties participated in the hearing in Chicago, Illinois, on June 4, 5, and 6, 1968, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present oral argument, and to file briefs. General Counsel argued orally at the close of the hearing and briefs were filed by the Respondent and General Counsel. -Respondent's motions to dismiss parts or all of the complaint, on which I reserved ruling, are disposed of according to my findings below. Upon the entire record in the case, from my reading of the briefs, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an Illinois corporation with its principal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the business of making and selling portrait photographs. During the calendar year 1967 Respondent realized gross receipts in excess of $500,000 from the operations described above and during the same period it purchased goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 within the State of Illinois, which goods and services originated outside the State of Illinois. During the same representative period the Respondent sold and', furnished goods and services valued in excess of $200,000 at points outside the State of Illinois. Respondent is now and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and meets the Board's standards for asserting jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Retail Store Employees Union, Local 300, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, is and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 'The complaint was a consolidated one combining with the instant matter a refusal-to-bargain allegation set forth in Case 13-CA-8348. At the close of General Counsel's case a motion to sever Case 13-CA-8348 from the instant proceeding was granted and the severed case has been disposed of in a separate decision. 174 NLRB No. 3 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interrogation, Threats, and Promises of Benefit 1. Interrogation On October 16, 1967, the Union conducted an organizing meeting attended by a large number of Respondent's portrait salesmen. All of Respondent's employees who attended that meeting signed authorization cards for the Union. The following day, Gilbert M. Greenberg, a proof passer,' was in Respondent's office carrying out certain of his regularly assigned duties. Greenberg testified that Company Secretary-Treasurer Burton L Shender, who was holding a piece of paper in his hand, asked if Greenberg had attended the union meeting and then inquired about the meeting and who had been present. Shender also asked if Greenberg had signed a union card. Greenberg stated that he had done so but protested that Shender was putting him on the spot. In reply Shender claimed that he knew who had been in attendance but was merely seeking to confirm his information. Shender then read off a list of names including some who had not been at the meeting. At this point Greenberg told the company official the names of those who had been incorrectly listed as having been at the meeting. Shender claimed that Greenberg had initiated the discussion concerning the Union and that Shender's only comment from time to time as Greenberg listed the names of those who had not been at the meeting was the single word "oh." Shender denied questioning Greenberg and testified that beyond the repeated word "oh," his part in the conversation had been argument against unionization of the proof salesmen. Greenberg impressed me on the stand as a frightened witness whose testimony concerning his conversation with Shender was given reluctantly but honestly. Shender on the tither hand did not evoke any feeling of confidence in his veracity. I credit Greenberg's account of his interrogation by Shender following the union meeting and find that by this interrogation Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.3 2. Threats and promise of benefit On October 30 and November 17, 1968, Company President Sheridan Stein addressed the proof passers assembled=on company premises. The findings herein as to those speeches are based solely on the purported texts submitted as exhibits by Respondent. There is in the record much testimony concerning those speeches by witnesses called by General Counsel. In his direct 'As explained by Company President Sheridan Stein , Respondent's business consists of on-location portrait photography . After the pictures have been taken, add developed, the proofs are returned to the customers by salesmen, known as proof passers, who attempt to sell pictures to the customers in addition to various free portraits which were the inducement to secure the initial appointment The proof passers, who are compensated on a commission ,,,basis, were found by the Board to constitute an appropriate unit for, purposes of collective bargaining: 'In addition to this incident with Greenberg , Shender was alleged in the complaint unlawfully to have questioned proof passer Katz. However, Katz was unable or unwilling to testify with sufficient clarity to enable me to make a finding concerning that allegation In any event, to remedy the violation found I shall recommend that the Board order Respondent to cease and desist from questioning employees about their own or the concerted activities of fellow employees. Accordingly, the incident involving Katz could add nothing to the Recommended Order. testimony Stein stated that the documents offered, were the full texts of his speeches, other than "connecting words," such as "and," "if," or "but," which he added in delivering the talks. Under examination it developed that Stein's use of the term "connecting words" was at best a loose one and that in fact the documents were outlines and notes for the speeches rather than full texts as claimed. However, the documents introduced by the Company, while not complete texts, are sufficient for purposes of decision. The complaint allegation was limited to statements by Stein made on or about November 17, 1967 During the course of the hearing it developed that Stein had made the two speeches. Counsel for, Respondent argued, strongly against the necessity of defending against any statements which may have been made during the October 30 talk. However, counsel for Respondent did introduce the documents which were submitted as Stein's texts for the two speeches. In response to Respondent's objection to the receipt of evidence concerning the October 30 address, I ruled that "In view of the pleadings I will ... make no findings of unfair labor practices as to any statements which were made at the meeting of October 30." However, I then alerted counsel that "In looking at the evidence as to what was said on November 17, 1 will view it in the background of what was said on October 30 or at other times. The statements of October 30 will add connotations to those made on November 17." In his November 17 speech Stein started by declaring Respondent's opposition to the Union and by pointing out thatt)thewproof passers' current working conditions were notit ppressive, that they had not been cheated, and that, if they worked, their earnings were high. Stein then went on to say "We will talk to you as a group" and in contrasting the posture of proof passers under organized or unorganized conditions Stein listed as one of the assets of a nonunion situation "possible benefits through group discussion." In his October 30 address Stein had stated We suggest that in the future, depending on the outcome of election, ways could be worked out for meetings so that this complaint could be alleviated - we can't legally go into details now but we have always kept our word. You would lose nothing by going along If you vote the Union down now, and give us a try, you could always petition again for another election. I find that the above statements not only contain implied promises of benefits to the employees if they refrain from selecting the Union as their bargaining representative,4 but also constitute an unlawful encouragement to the employees to bargain with the employer through their own group rather than through the bargaining representative of their choice. Encouragement of the employees to bypass the Union in favor of this "group" interferes with employee rights.' Later in the speech Stein pointed out that, in addition to the Union having a right to make demands, the Company can do so as well, saying-"We can ask for such things as higher averages, a minimum of number of stops etc., etc., etc., as part of our demands."6 Standing alone, the foregoing statement could be interpreted as a mere statement of an employer's right to put forward demands in collective bargaining with the 'Sherman Distributing Company. Inc , 'd/b/a Schroeder Distributing Company, 171 NLRB No. 194; Viking of Minneapolis , Division of the Telex Corporation , 171 NLRB No. 7 'International Metal Specialties, Inc, 172 NLRB No 39. 'Similar statements were made in the October 30 speech SHERIDAN-PETER PAN STUDIOS, INC. 15 representative of its employees . However in the context of the promise of benefit if the employees eschewed union representation , encouragement of the employees to deal with the Company without intervention of an outside representative , and repeated strong statements in opposition} to the Union,' I find that Stein was threatening reprisal and a worsening of working conditions in the event the employees selected the Union to represent them. N.L.R B. v. Kropp Forge Co., 178 F,2d 822, 828 (C.A. 7). 3. Grant of benefit On November 20, 1967, a majority of Respondent's employees voted to have the Union represent them as their bargaining agent. On November 28, 1967, Respondent raised the maximum travel allowance paid to proof salesmen employed in selling portraits generated by the sittings of church groups. The complaint alleged that this act was undertaken to undermine the majority status of the Union. The only evidence pertaining to this complaint allegation was testimony by Company President Stein when he was called as a witness by the General Counsel. Stein explained that a growing part of the Company's business was the preparation of pictorial directories for churches . The Company not only photographs all church members and their families but also prepares and prints the directory with the photographs included. As with,the other parts of its business the proofs are shown to>;tlie persons photographed with an effort made cto tikelh, additional pictures. Unlike Respondent's baby "picWrd ' business which is in the Chicago metropolitan area, the churches solicited for the directory business are located in States other than Illinois and the preparation of the directories and the showing of proofs involve considerable travel. Stein explained that when this type of business was first entered into, proof passers were allowed $2.50 expenses for trips up to 60 miles. As the work went further afield the allowance was raised to $5 for trips up to 150 miles and then to $7.50 for trips of distances between 150 and 200 miles. Stein testified without contradiction that during the week of November 27, 1967, Respondent for the first time required proof passers to travel more than 200 miles to show proofs in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. At that time a new bracket of travel allowance, again in a multiple of $2.50, was created for trips over 200 miles. While I am loathe to base a finding on Stein's unsupported testimony,' I note that General Counsel failed to test the truthfulness of this evidence by use of the subpoena power to explore original company sales- records. Accordingly, I cannot find a violation in the creation of this new travel allowance bracket. It is not an increased benefit in the sense that a higher allowance is paid in place of it prior lower level of payment. Rather, Respondent faced with a new measure of travel obligation for proof passers followed established practice in adding an additional $2.50 of travel allowance for an additional distance of travel . Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of this allegation of the complaint. 'Stein closed his speech by stating "And finally I want to repeat that we are opposed to the Union but win or lose we will own this business We will bargain with the Union, but the day to day operation, the financial, the production, the schedules and the assignment of calls we run." On the basis of his two appearances as a witness in this proceeding I did not find Stein to be a credible witness. B. The Discharge of Morris Krugman Morris Krugman, a proof passer employed by the Respondent for over 12 years was discharged in January 1968 for the stated reason that his average sales had been unsatisfactory. At the Board-conducted election on November 20, 1967, when the Union was selected as the bargaining representative of Respondent's proof passers, Krugman served as the Union's observer, As disclosed by the record herein the union activities engaged in by the employees consisted solely of their attendance at the union meeting on October 16, 1967, and Krugman's service as the Union's observer at the election. Almost all of the proof passers attended the meeting on October 16, only Krugman acted as a union observer. Thus, alone among Respondent's employees Krugman's protected activities stood out. During his employment as a proof passer by the Respondent, Krugman consistently turned in average sales lower than those of most of the proof passers. About the middle of December 1967 Shender, Respondent's secretary-treasurer, remarked to Krugman that he was doing better, that his average sales were up. However, when Krugman was advised by Stein and Shender early in January 1968 that his employment was to be terminated, he was told that this action was taken because his average sales were low and Respondent's business was slowing down, resulting in fewer sittings for portraits and fewer proofs to be shown. Discharged with Krugman were Schaffer, who had been with Respondent as a proof passer for approximately 1-1/2 years, and two salesmen, who had been employed for only several months, Waldman and Zak. Retained were Victor Goddard who had been employed only 6 weeks and Robert Leduc who had worked as a salesman for Respondent for 4 weeks. Company President Stein first testified that the only factor taken into account in the decision to discharge Krugman was his low standing in average sales among the proof passers, in fact, second from the bottom. Later, Stein expanded the reasons for discharge testifying: Mr. Krugman was a bad employee. Mr. Krugman didn't work hard.... Mr. Krugman refused to call on Negro customers. Mr. Krugman didn't close his calls - several other salesmen closed his calls. He left a lot of calls that he didn't consider "good calls." leads - , and customers would call up; complain that he didn't close these calls. In his speech to the employees on November 17, 1967, Stein had said: Have you chosen your leaders well? Are you sure that they are not the very ones who are guilty of not working too hard, sluffing the calls, keeping out choice callbacks (devising means of not turning them in) leaving choice calls in the mail box, taking the other man's straight calls, and taking unnecessary time off. Stein further testified that during 1967 he had spoken to Krugman three or four times about his poor sales performance. Stein claimed that there also had been discussions about Negro customers with! Krugman and that Krugman, alone among the Company's employees, had refused to call on Negro customers. Krugman denied having had any conversation at all with Stein during 1967, let alone sessions during which Stein had pointed out his deficiencies as a salesman. During cross-examination counsel , for Respondent. 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD apparently seeking to prove that Stein had not interrogated Krugman about his union activities,' made a point of establishing that there had been no conversations, regardless of subject, between Stein and Krugman in 1967. On the other hand proof passer Richard Max credibly testified that on two occasions in 1967 Stein had spoken to him about a slippage in his average sales and salesman Martin Boxer credibly testified that' he had had a similar conversation with Stein in February 1968, about a month after Krugman's discharge. I credit Krugman and discredit Stein's claim that Krugman's performance as a salesman had been a matter of concern and that Stein had called this to Krugman's attention in 1967. Having gratuitously created a credibility conflict between his client and Krugman, counsel for Respondent seeks in his brief to avoid its resolution by deprecating the weight of the evidence concerning which they are in disagreement. However, credibility of the witnesses and of the documentary evidence they prepared is in essence the sole issue governing this case. I have found that Stein was untruthful in claiming that the documents introduced constitute the full text of his speeches. Shender was equally contemptuous of the truth in testifying about his interrogation of Greenberg. In cross-examination, counsel for Respondent has further pointed out Stein's lack of credibility by reaffirming Krugman's contravention of Stein's claim that on a number of occasions in 1967 he had warned Krugman about his sales deficiencies. It is in light of their established disregard for the truth that I turn to the exhibits purportedly prepared by Stein and Shender from company records. In response to a subpena from General Counsel, Respondent produced a number of statistical tables purporting to show various aspects of sales performance by the proof passers. Thus, one table (introduced as Respondent's Exhibit 2) lists proof salesmen as of December 1967, showing the number of calls each had closed, their gross sales, average sales, and ranking within the group of proof passers for each classification. Another exhibit (introduced as Resp. Exh. 3) purported to show the names of proof passers employed in the year 1964 through 1967 with their average sales for each year and their ranking within the peer group. Upon examination, however, it appears that names such as those of Leduc and Goddard while appearing on Resp. Exh. 3 are missing on its Exhibit 2. Additionally, Shender admitted that names might have been omitted in the years prior to 1967 explaining that the records showing average sales by proof passers were not considered important enough by Respondent to keep and when the book in which they are entered became full, material was taken out because "It is nothing we have to keep, and nothing we thought we had to keep." Thus, apart from the lack of credibility of those who prepared these exhibits the apparent and admitted omissions and inconsistencies cast serious doubt upon their probative value. Stein testified that a consideration in the decision to discharge Krugman was a company projection that sales would be off in 1968 and fewer proof passers would be needed. A further table prepared by Respondent (introduced as G. C. Exh. 2-a), showed the total number of sittings by year from 1962 through 1967, broken down by month from 1965 through January 1968. This table reveals that sittings for January 1968 were approximately 7 percent higher than those in January 1967. Subsequent to Krugman's discharge two new proof passers were hired. 'There was no complaint allegation that Stein had done so Stein testified that when Krugman was discharged Respondent retained Goddard and Leduc because they had higher averages, realized more gross sales, and closed more proofs than Krugman. As noted, Goddard had worked only 6 weeks when the decision to discharge Krugman was made. During that period his average sale was $14.83. However, for a comparable 6-week period" Krugman's average was $15.78. Leduc's average of $17.82 for the 4 weeks which he worked was above that of Krugman for a comparable 4-week period" while his total of customer calls for those weeks was only 14 higher than that of Krugman. Moreover, Shender acknowledged that Leduc's and Goddard's averages were weighted in their favor as against that of Krugman since they worked only during the busy Christmas sales season and his was computed for a full year's work. All things considered, I find that Krugman was selected for discharge because he had singled himself out as the leading union adherent. As demonstrated in Stein's November 17 speech Respondent was strongly opposed to union representation of the proof passers. In that same speech Stein questioned the employees' selection of leadership from their midst, and his description of the suspected union leadership is strikingly similar to the ,listing of Krugman's deficiencies given when Stein was pressed for his reasons for selecting Krugman for discharge. In addition to this indication that Stein believed Krugman to be the Union's leader among the proof pq>ssers,, Krugman and Krugman alone by serving as the Uninri1s observer at the November 20 election disclosed an adherence to the Union above and beyond that of all other,proof passers. While I do not gainsay Krugman's standing in the lower ranks of Respondent's proof passers, his failure to achieve high average sales was not a new thing-and had been accepted by Respondent during his 12 years of employment.': Krugman's low average sales became unprofitable to Respondent only after he had identified himself as the leading union adherent among the proof passers. Moreover, analysis of the statistical evidence presented by Respondent reveals that the two proof passers, hired subsequent to the Union's victory at the election, who were retained when Krugman was discharged had not been during the 'period of their employment the superior salesmen as claimed by the Company when their sales records are compared with Krugman's during the same period of time. I conclude that Krugman's standing among the lower ranks of Respondent's proof passers was seized upon by Respondent as a pretext to rid itself of the- lone known union activist as part of the Company's continuing effort to avoid meeting its statutory obligation to recognize and deal with the Union as the proof passers' collective-bargaining agent. The situation was one where the Union was seeking initial recognition against active company opposition. Krugman was the only' known active union adherent and Respondent had much to gain by 'Weeks of November 11 through December 16 "An average of $16.21 for the weeks of November 25 through December 16. "The Respondent called as a witness one Leo Gentn , a supervisor, who testified that in a conversation with Krugman subsequent to the discharge, Krugman had stated in reference to a new job that he had "stopped monkeying around " Krugman denied having made this statement. It appears that Respondent would have me infer that Krugman's poor average sales while employed by the Company had been the result of "monkeying around ." Genin was a totally incredible witness. I credit Krugman's denial SHERIDAN-PETER PAN STUDIOS, INC. getting rid of him . See Ostertag Optical Service, Inc., of Oklahoma, 171 NLRB No. 182, fn 1. W. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's -operations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, 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 Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall -recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged Morris Krugman, I shall recommend that Respondent be -ordered to reinstate him to his former or a substantially equivalent position of employment without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges and to make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of Respondent's unlawful conduct. Backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating2Co., 138 NLRB 716. n3aona^ Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Sheridan-Peter Pan Studios, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. By engaging in certain described conduct referred to herein above, in section III, A, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By engaging in certain conduct described in section III, B, above, Respondent discriminated against Morris Krugman in regard to his tenure of employment in order to discourage activities protected by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent has not committed other unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER The Respondent, Sheridan-Peter Pan Studios, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees concerning their own activities on behalf of the Union or the activities and sympathies of other employees; promising benefit to employees if they refrain from selecting the Union as their 17 bargaining representative; encouraging employees to bargain with the Company through their own group rather than through the bargaining representative of their choice, thereby bypassing the Union, and threatening reprisal and a worsening of working conditions in the event the employees selected the Union to represent them. (b) Discouraging or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by the discharge of Morris Krugman. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to Morris Krugman immediate and full reinstatement to his, former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to any rights or privileges he may have enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered-by reason of the discrimination practiced in the manner provided hereof, in the section entitled "The Remedy."i 3 (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and compute the amount of backpay due and all other rights under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Post at its Chicago, Illinois, plant copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix .1114 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith! I It is further ordered that the compalint be dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not specifically found herein. "In view of Mr. Krugman's age, I shall omit from the Recommended Order and notice the standard provision requiring Respondent to notify the discrimmatee if presently serving in the Armed Forces. In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's 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." "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Retail Store Employees Union, Local 300, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging and refusing to, reinstate any of our employees, - or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any terms or conditions'of employment. WE WILL offer to Morris Krugman reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by him as a result of his discharge. WE WILL NOT question our employees about their activities on behalf of the Union or the activities and sympathies of other employees. WE WILL NOT promise benefits to our employees because they refrain from selecting the Union as their bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT encourage our employees to bargain with the Company through their own group rather than through the bargaining representative of their choice and thereby bypassing the Union. WE WILL NOT threaten reprisals and a worsening of working conditions in the event the employees selected the Union to, represent them. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Dated SHERIDAN-PETER PAN STUDIOS, INC. (Employer) 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 1 or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219- South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone 828-7572.