The Red Cross Drug Co.

THE RED CROSS DRUG COMPANY The Red Cross Drug Company and Retail Clerks Local No. 1403, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO. Case 30-CA-689 January 9, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On August 16, 1968, Trial Examiner Robert Cohn issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and the General Counsel also filed a supporting brief. The Union filed cross-exceptions 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, cross-exceptions, and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except to the extent herein modified.' 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, as herein modified, and orders that the Respondent, The Red Cross Drug Company, Racine, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Delete from paragraph 2(a) of the Recommended Order the words "establish a preferential hiring list, and." 2. Delete paragraph 2(b) of the Recommended Order and substitute therefor the following: 'We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's recommendation that the Respondent be required to place the names of the laid-off employees of the W ashmgton Avenue store upon a preferential hiring list , and offer them employment at the other stores when positions for which they are qualified become available . In our view, to require a preferential list would improperly impose minimum terms on the bargaining the Respondent is required to engage in with the Union 85 "(b) Make whole the employees of Respondent's Washington Avenue store for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's unfair labor practices, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled `The Remedy'." 3. Delete the language of paragraph 2(c) of the Recommended Order "whose names appear on the aforesaid preferential hiring list" and substitute "referred to in paragraph 2(b)." 4. Delete from the Appendix the paragraphs reading "WE WILL establish a preferential hiring list . . ." and "WE WILL notify . ..." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT COHN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, heard before me in Racine, Wisconsin, on May 28, 1968, involves, essentiE.lly, the issue of whether The Red Cross Drug Company' (herein the Company or Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), through its failure to notify and negotiate with Retail Clerks Local No. 1403, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO (herein the Union), concerning the decision to close, and eventual closing, of the Respondent's Washington Avenue store, the Union having been previously designated as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees at said store.' The Respondent, by its duly filed answer, generally admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. At the hearing, all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to participate, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally and/or to file briefs with the Trial Examiner. Oral argument was waived. Posthearing briefs have been filed with the Trial Examiner by counsel for the General Counsel and by counsel for the Respondent, which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Respondent, a Wisconsin corporation, is engaged in the operation of a chain of retail drug stores in Racine, Wisconsin, including a store which, prior to November 2, 1967, was located at 5415 Washington Avenue in Racine. During the annual period preceding the filing of the charge herein, which is a representative period, Respondent made sales, through all the retail stores, in excess of $500,000. In the same period, Respondent purchased and received goods and materials from points outside the State of Wisconsin, valued in excess of $50,000. 'The name of the Company appears as corrected at the hearing The former name was Red Cross Rexall Drug Stores, Inc. See 169 NLRB No. 89. The charge was filed by the Union on November 13, 1967, and was served on Respondent the same date. The complaint and notice of hearing was issued on April 9, 1968. 174 NLRB No. 17 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the foregoing facts, which Respondent's answer admits, I find that at all times material Respondent has been and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.' such closure upon - bargaining unit employees. The sole issue herein is, whether such conduct violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and, if so, what the remedy should be. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Retail Clerks Local No. 1403, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Chronology of Events Following complaint proceedings against the Respondent pursuant to Section 10 of the Act (Case 30-CA-539), a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) issued his Decision on October'19, 1967. In such decision, the Trial Examiner found and concluded, inter alia, that the Union had been at all times since on and after January 20, 1967, the exclusive representative of all employees of the Respondent in an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining. The unit found appropriate is described as follows: All full-time and regular part-time employees at Respondent's store located at 5415 Washington Avenue, Racine, Wisconsin, excluding one store manager, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act The Trial Examiner further found that at all times since on or about January 24, 1967, the Respondent refused to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, thereby'violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. On October 24, 1967, the Union wrote to the Respondent's attorney requesting a meeting for the purpose of negotiating a collective-bargaining agreement. Two days later, on October 26, the attorney, by letter, advised the Union that the case would be appealed and therefore the Respondent "would not negotiate until there is a final determination .114 The Board, on February 2, 1968, issued its Decision and Order (169 NLRB No. 89) in which it overruled the exceptions of the Respondent and adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner in all material respects. The record in the instant proceeding reflects that the Respondent intends to request a review of the Board's Decision and Order in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. B. Statement of the Issues Following the rendition; of the Trial Examiner's Decision and the' exchange of correspondence between the Union and the Respondent's attorney hereinabove described, the Respondent closed its Washington Avenue store and terminated the employees at that location without prior notice to or bargaining with the Union either with respect to the decision to close or the effects of 'The Board asserted jurisdiction over the Respondent in Case 30-CA-539, reported at 169 NLRB No 89. 'The letter (G. C. Exh. 3) is actually dated October 26 , 1968. This is an obvious inadvertence. C. Statement of Facts' The Respondent does not contest the allegation that it closed its Washington Avenue store on or about November 2, 1967, without prior notice to or bargaining with the Union; the Respondent submits that such closure was impelled by economic conditions over which it had no control, i.e., that the store had been a losing proposition since its establishment on November 1, 1965, and "there was nothing the Union could have done, unless it was willing to underwrite the losses at the store until and if it was ever able to break even, or make a profit. Management had never heard of such generosity by a union." (Resp. answer, p. 3). Respondent asserts that the store was originally built as part of a plan for a large shopping center to be erected by the landowner on the corner of Washington Avenue and Highway No. 31 in Racine. However, due to circumstances beyond the control of the Respondent, the shopping center was never completed and following the first year of its operation, the Washington store showed a loss of some $30,000. Commencing about the first of the year, 1967, the Respondent started negotiations with the landowner seeking cancellation of its 15-year lease agreement. Such negotiations continued throughout the year until "in November of 1967 when an agreement was made wherein the Company paid [the landowner] a penalty to break the lease of $23,611.92."6 The operating loss of the Washington Avenue store during its second year of operation was set at $24,110.21. The parties stipulated that neither the Union nor the employees of the store were notified of its closing prior to November 2, 1967. It was further stipulated that the Respondent operates four other retail drug stores in Racine within a 5-mile radius of the Washington Avenue store and that there were lunch counters at two of those stores. At the time of the closing of the Washington Avenue store, there were I1 bargaining unit employees, of which approximately 7 were employed at the lunch counter at the Washington Avenue store.' With respect to employment of the terminated Washington Avenue store employees, the record herein reflects only the statement of the Respondent that "there has been no prevalent rehiring of those who worked at the Washington Avenue store. One of the part-time employees who helped out during the holidays there is helping at one of the other stores."8 Analysis and Concluding Findings It is by now well established that when a company subject to the Act contemplates the closing of part of its operations, which will have a significant impact upon the tenure of employment of bargaining unit employees, it is bound to notify and bargain with the designated agent of such employees both respecting the decision and the effect 'There was no oral testimony at the hearing, all findings of fact are based upon either unopposed allegations in the pleadings, stipulations of the parties, or unopposed statements of position by counsel at the hearing. 'See Exh "A" attached to Resp. answer, p. 3 'Some of the lunch counter employees were part-time employees who worked after school. 'See Exh. "A" to Resp. answer, p 1. THE RED CROSS DRUG COMPANY of such closing upon such employees.' As previously noted, the Trial Examiner in the prior case found that the Union had been designated as the exclusive representative for all employees in the appropriate unit since January 20, 1967. Thus the Respondent had practically a whole year in which to notify the Union of its contemplated action and to bargain with respect to both it and the effect of such contemplated closure on the future employment opportunities of the employees in the unit. The Company's contention that "there was nothing the Union could have done" is clearly no defense. Both the Board and the courts have recognized that, in comparable situations, unions have been known to make alternative suggestions concerning the need for elimination of unit jobs or at least propose "steps that might be taken to minimize the effect upon employees of the proposed action."10 On the basis of the foregoing facts, in the light of the authorities above cited, I find and conclude that by failing to notify and bargain with the Union concerning the decision to close the Washington Avenue store and the effect of such closure on the bargaining unit employees, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Red Cross Drug Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act. 2. Retail Clerks Local No. 1403, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All full-time and regular part-time employees at the 5415 Washington Avenue, Racine, Wisconsin, store of the Respondent, excluding one store manager , professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 4. Retail Clerks Local No. 1403, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, was, on January 20, 1967, and at all times since has been, the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By unilaterally closing its Washington Avenue, Racine, Wisconsin, store, without prior notice to, consultation with, or bargaining with the above-named labor organization, thereby failing and refusing to bargain 'Thompson Transport Company, Inc., 165 NLRB No 96, McGregor Printing Corporation , 163 NLRB No. 113, and cases cited at fn. 9 thereof The instant case does not, of course , involve a situation where an employer closes his entire business. Accordingly, I need not, and do not, determine the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in N.L R .B v. Darlington Mfg Co.. 380,U.S 263, which dealt with that issue See , eg., Ozark Trailers, Inc., 161 NLRB 561, 564-565 "Winn-Dixie Stores , Inc, 147 NLRB 788, 789, enfd. as modified 361 F 2d 512 (CA 5). Contrary to the Respondent's assertions, unions have been known to assist managements financially in order to maintain working opportunities for their members. For example, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers has for many years maintained its own bank in New York and Chicago, which has extended credit to employers. It, along with the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, also offers employers engineering assistance The Millinery Workers (formerly the AFL Hatters) more than once. saved jobs for its members by providing financial aid to an employer. See, e.g., Seidman "The Union Agenda for Security," in Monthly Labor Review , June, 1963, p 640 87 collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above-described unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By the above-described conduct, which thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The above-described unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce, and constitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY In his brief, counsel for the General Counsel, while not seeking a remedy which would "include the reopening of the Washington Avenue store," asserts that an appropriate remedy must "redress the unfair labor practices and recreate, to the extent possible, the situation that would have prevailed but for Respondent's unlawful conduct." According to the General Counsel, this should include provisions: (1) that the Respondent be required to bargain not only about the effect of the closing upon unit employees, but also about the resumption of the operation; (2) that the Respondent be required to offer all terminated employees immediate and full reinstatement to substantially equivalent positions at remaining stores in the Racine area, discharging, if necessary, employees hired at other stores subsequent to the closing of the Washington Avenue store; (3) that a preferential hiring list should be established for those remaining employees for whom no work is immediately available; and (4) that the employees should be made whole by paying them backpay from the date of the closing until one of four conditions are met." The Board has recognized that "In fashioning remedies the Board must bear in mind that the remedy should `be adapted to the situation that calls for redress,' with a view toward `restoring the situation as nearly as possible, to that which would have obtained but for [the unfair labor practice]' " (citing Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 177, 194).12 In fashioning a remedy to the facts of the instant case, I have kept in mind that the General Counsel did not allege an 8(a)(3) violation in his complaint, and does not contend that the closing of the Washington Avenue store was for other than economic motives. On the other hand, I cannot overlook facts which appear in the record which, in my view, taint the Respondent's assertion of good faith, and which I have considered in making a determination as to what constitutes an appropriate remedy in this case. These are: (1) The finding in the previous decision by the Trial Examiner (affirmed by the Board) that "the Respondent completely rejected the collective-bargaining principle and that it merely sought an election in order to gain time within which to undermine the Union and dissipate its majority" ;13 (2) the announcement by the "G C. brief, pp. 1 & 2 The four conditions set forth are the same as those established by the Board in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc, 147 NLRB 788, 792, see also Ozark Trailers, Inc. 161 NLRB 561, 571, Royal Plating and Polishing Co., Inc., 160 NLRB 990, 998. 1RRoyal Plating and Polishing Co., Inc, 160 NLRB 990, 997 "See sec. III, E, of Trial Examiner's Decision. 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent that it will seek review of the Board's bargaining order in the prior case on the ground that the single store unit is inappropriate . This in the face of the finding in the previous case that the Respondent 's answer admitted that the single store unit was-an appropriate one for bargaining ; and (3) although, as hereinabove pointed out, the Respondent asserts that negotiations with the landowner concerning the cancellation of the lease commenced around the first of the year, 1967, there was no reference by Respondent of its intentions in any correspondence with the Union in January 1967 (see previous Trial Examiner' s Decision, section III, A); indeed , according to the Trial Examiner's Decision, there was no reference at all made by the Respondent to this contemplated event during the Union ' s campaign in January, although it would certainly seem reasonable and likely that Respondent' s officers would have indicated to either the Union or some of Respondent 's employees that such an important event as the probable closing of the store was in the offing. This, in the context of the Respondent' s other unfair labor practices , renders the announcement of the closing on November , 2, 1967 - about 2 weeks following the Trial Examiner ' s Decision - as slightly more than simply a fortuitous coincidence. Accordingly, I agree with the General Counsel that a backpay order is an appropriate means of remedying 8(a)(5) violations of the type involved herein, "even where such violations are unaccompanied by a discriminatory shutdown of operations."" I agree with the contention of counsel for the General Counsel that the circumstances of this case do not render practicable a remedy which would order the reopening of the Washington Avenue store . The condition precedent to the establishment of the store, i.e., the planned shopping center, has apparently been abandoned , the lease has been canceled, and there is no indication that another store in the area, absent a shopping center, would be economically feasible. However, I shall, in the light of the authorities above cited, recommend that the Respondent be ordered to bargain collectively with the Union concerning the decision to close such operation as well as with respect to the effects of such closure on the employees in the above-described unit. In the absence of an allegation and finding that the closing of the Washington Avenue store was discriminatorily motivated , I find no authority for the position of the General Counsel that the Respondent be required to offer all terminated Washington Avenue employees reinstatement to positions at the Respondent's remaining stores in the Racine area, "discharging, if necessary, employees hired at other stores subsequent to the closing of the Washington Avenue Store." (G. C. brief, p. 2) However, I do find appropriate to the circumstances that Respondent be required to place the names of the laid-off employees of the Washington Avenue store upon a preferential hiring list following the system of seniority , if any, customarily applied to the conduct of Respondent's business, and offer them employment at the other stores when positions for which they are qualified become available.15 With respect to backpay, I shall recommend that the Respondent make the discharged employees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the "Ozark Trailers, Inc., 161 NLRB 561, 571; Royal Plating and Polishing Co., Inc., 148 NLRB 545, 548 "Compare McG regor Printing Corporation , 163 NLRB No 113. Respondent's unfair labor practices. The liability for such backpay shall cease upon the occurrence of any of the following conditions: (1) Reaching mutual agreement with the Union relating to the subjects which Respondent is herein required to bargain about; (2) bargaining to a bona fide impasse, (3) the failure of the Union to commence negotiations within 5 days of the receipt of the Respondent's notice of its willingness to bargain with the Union; or (4) the failure of the Union to bargain thereafter in good faith. Of course, Respondent's backpay obligation to any individual employee would cease when that employee is reinstated at one of the remaining stores.' 6 Backpay, which shall run from November 2, 1967, until the fulfillment of one of the foregoing conditions, shall be based upon the earnings which the terminated employees would normally have received during the applicable period less any net interim earnings, and shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner set forth in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344; with interest thereon, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. RECOMMENDED ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is hereby ordered that Respondent, The Red Cross Drug Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Retail Clerks Local No. 1403, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its Washington Avenue store employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, concerning the decision to close the Washington Avenue store and the effects of such closure on such employees. (b) Unilaterally closing any of its stores without prior notice to and bargaining with the collective-bargaining representative, if any, of employees of such store concerning the decision to close and its effects upon such employees. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring union membership as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to, and upon request, bargain collectively with the Union concerning the closing and possible resumption of its Washington Avenue store, and, failing to reach agreement in this matter, establish a preferential hiring list, and bargain concerning the effects upon the "See Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc, 147 NLRB 788, 792; Royal Plating and Polishing Co., Inc.. 160 NLRB 990, 998; cf. Ozark Trailers, Inc., 161 NLRB 561, 571. THE RED CROSS DRUG COMPANY employees, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." If an understanding should be reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Make whole those individuals whose names appear on the preferential hiring list, required to be created under paragraph 2(a) above, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent 's unfair labor practices, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Notify, if and when the operations of the Washington Avenue store are resumed , all the individuals whose names appear on the aforesaid preferential hiring list if serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) 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 or useful to determine the amount of backpay due and the rights of reinstatement under the terms of this Order. (e) Post at its stores in Racine, Wisconsin , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."i' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative , shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by the Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to 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. (f) Promptly upon receipt from the Regional Director of copies of the said notice, mail a copy thereof, signed as set forth above, to Retail Clerks Local No. 1403, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, and to each of the employees entitled to backpay hereunder, at his last known address, by certified mail. (g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,' g what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. "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 30, 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 employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargam collectively in good faith with Retail Clerks Union Local No. 1403, Retail 89 Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit by failing or refusing to bargain with the above-named labor organization with regard to the decision to close the Washington Avenue store, and the effects of such closure upon the employees in the appropriate unit. The appropriate unit is: All full-time and regular part-time employees at the 5415 Washington Avenue, Racine, Wisconsin, store, excluding one store manager, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT unilaterally close any of our stores without prior notice to or bargaining with the collective-bargaining representative, if any, concerning such decision and the effects thereof. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the appropriate unit in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist unions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring union membership as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act if 1959. WE WILL establish a preferential hiring list containing the names of all employees in the appropriate unit laid off as a result of the closing of the Washington Avenue store on November 2, 1967, following the system of seniority, if any, customarily applied to the conduct of our business. WE WILL notify the aforementioned union , and each listed employee, of the establishment of such list and the contents thereof, and WE WILL offer the individuals whose names appear on the aforesaid list jobs for which they are qualified, as such jobs become open or may develop at either of our other stores in the Racine, Wisconsin, area, or upon reopening of the Washington Avenue store (whichever first occurs), before any other person is employed. WE WILL make whole the individuals we laid off on November 2, 1967, as a result of the closing of the Washington Avenue store, for any loss of pay suffered by them as the result of failure and refusal to bargain with the above-named Union concerning the closing of the Washington Avenue store, with 6 percent interest Dated By THE RED CROSS DRUG COMPANY (Employer) (Representative) (Title) Note: We will notify, if and when we resume operations of the Washington Avenue store, all the individuals whose names appear on the aforesaid preferential hiring list if serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD defaced, or covered by any other material. directly with the Board's Regional Office, Second Floor, If employees have any question concerning this notice Commerce Building, 744 North Fourth Street, or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate - Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 272-3861