Better Val-U Supermarkets of Rockville, Inc.

BETTER VAL-U SUPERMARKETS Better Val-U Supermarkets of Rockville, Inc. and Local 919, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL.-CIO. Case 1-CA-6323 January 22, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On August 28, 1968, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman 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 Respondent filed exceptions to the 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 and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified below. 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, Better Val-U Supermarkets of Rockville, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified.3 'Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner's credibility findings. Under the established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's credibility findings unless a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they were incorrect, we find no basis for disturbing the credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner in this case Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 844, enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C A. 3). 'In concluding that Respondent's interrogation of employee Rock was coercive, the Trial Examiner viewed such interrogation in the context of Respondent's entire course of conduct, including its prior unfair labor practices as found in Better Val-U Stores of Mansfield, Inc., 161 NLRB 762. We note that, except for the bargaining order, that Decision and Order has now been enforced in full by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit N.L R.B v. Better Val-U Stores of Mansfield, Inc., 401 F 2d 491 (C.A. 2). 'Add as the first indented paragraph to the notice the following WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the union activities of our employees, or in any conduct which can reasonably be calculated to convey to our employees the impression that their union activities are under our surveillance. 171 Change the last indented paragraph of the notice to read as follows WE WILL make whole Gerald Bock for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of our discharge of him TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOSEPH I. NACHMAN , Trial Examiner: This proceeding tried before me at Hartford, Connecticut, on July 15 and 16,' involves a complaint ' pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), alleging that Better Val-U Supermarkets of Rockville, Inc. (herein called Respondent ), interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights protected by Section 7 of the Act, and on April 19 discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate its employee Gerald Bock because of his membership in and activities in support of Local 919, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union). By answer Respondent admitted certain allegations of the Complaint, but denied the commission of any unfair labor practice. At the trial, the General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel , and the Union by its business representative . All parties were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witness, to adduce relevant testimony, and to argue orally on the record. Oral argument was waived . Briefs submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent, respectively, have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case , including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following 1. FINDINGS OF FACTS A. The Unfair Labor Practices Alleged 1. Background Respondent operates retail food supermarkets. The operation consists of three stores' which, while separately incorporated, are operated as an intergrated enterprise; Ruben Bokoff being president, Harry Bokoff, vice president, and Henry Zulka, general manager, his duties including personnel relations. The Bokoffs, who each own 50 percent of the stock, and Zulka divide their time among the stores as their business judgment dictates. The single store involved in this proceeding, located at Rockville, Connecticut, opened for business the first week in November 1967. Shortly thereafter the Union began a campaign to organize the employees of that store, which will hereafter be discussed in greater detail. The Union's campaign at the Rockville store was not Respondent's first exposure to'the area of labor relations. In Better Val-U Stores of Mansfield, Inc., 161 NLRB 762, the Board found that Respondent, in the operation of its Mansfield store, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the 'Unless otherwise indicated, all dates mentioned are 1968 'Issued June 17, on a charge filed May 3. 'No issue of commerce or labor organization is presented . The complaint alleges and the answer admits facts which establish the Board's jurisdiction. Although Respondent's answer claimed that it was without knowledge of the Union's status as a labor organization , at the hearing that fact was stipulated I find these facts to be in accordance with the pleadings, as modified by the stipulation. 4Located at Lisbon, Mansfield and Rockville, Connecticut. 174 NLRB No. 32 172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Act, threatened employees with reprisal for their union activity; promised benefits for refraining from Union activity; stated that it would be futile for employees to join a Union because Respondent would never agree to recognize the Union; and in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, discharged the most prominent employee union organizer because of her union activities. The Board there found that General Manager Zulka made most of the statements found violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and also discharged the employee which was the basis for the 8(a)(3) violation. Having found that the Union involved in that cases had attained majority status prior to the unfair labor practices, and because such unfair labor practices were designed to dissipate said majority and prevent a fair election, the Board ordered Respondent, upon request, to bargain with Local 371.6 2. Current facts a. The 8(a)(1) allegations 1. Among the employees at Respondent's Rockville store were Gerald Bock and Leonard Rock. Being high school students they were on duty after school and on Saturday, working a schedule of about 25 hours a week. On April 10, Bock and Rock were on the sidewalk in front of the store just before reporting fo? duty, when they were engaged in conversation by Union Agent Costello. At this point General Manager Zulka came out of the store onto the sidewalk and began gathering carriages. Costello regarded Zulka's presence as interfering with his discussions with the employees, suggested that they accompany him to his car in the parking lot.' While Costello and the two employees were going toward the car, Zulka followed and asked Costello if there was anything he (Zulka) could do to help. Costello replied, in substance that Zulka could let him alone so that he could talk to the employees, and that he (Zulka) was scaring them, which he should not do. Zulka replied to the effect that it was his parking lot and he could walk about it if he wished to do so.' Zulka then returned to the sidewalk where he remained looking toward Costello and the two employees. At this point Bock, leaning against the roof of Costello's car, and standing half facing Zulka, signed a union card and gave it to Costello. Bock and Rock then started toward the store to go to work. Zulka went toward them, and directing his remark to Bock asked, "Did you sign up okay?" Bock mumbled an affirmative response, and with Rock went into the store and both went to work. 9 employee Rock, while the latter was at work, whether "Costello, the man from the Union, had been asking me any questions or talking to me." Rock replied that he had not seen Costello "in a couple of weeks."10 b. The 8(a)(3) allegations Bock was hired by Respondent's General Manager Zulka on February 26, and was assigned to work in the produce department under Les Owens, head of that department." Zulka admits that Bock's work was in all respects satisfactory, testifying that the latter "was a wonderful employee." Bock's starting pay was $1.60 per hour, and in accordance with Respondent's policy was raised after 4 weeks of satisfactory service, to $1.70 per hour. On February 5, before being hired, Bock had filled out and delivered to Respondent an employment application, which Zulka admittedly reviewed. The application disclosed that Bock had worked for another retail grocery store from September 1 to November 15, 1967, in the position of "stock & produce," and that the work he sought was that of "stock." On April 10, Bock signed a union card under the circumstances above set forth in detail with respect to the parking lot incident. When Bock reported for work on the afternoon of April 19, produce manager Owens told Bock that he (Owens) had been directed by Zulka to lay off Bock because there was not enough work in the produce department, and the payroll was running too high. Owens suggested that Bock return to the store when Zulka was present, and that he (Owens) would try to get Zulka or the Bokoffs to give Bock work in some other department of the store. Bock went to the store on April 20, for the purpose, and heard Owens and Zulka discuss the matter. At this time Bock told Zulka that he needed a job and would work in any department. Zulka insisted that the other departments were fully staffed, that he could not in fairness discharge even a recently hired employee to make room for Bock, but that he would, upon the next opening for a part time employee, notify Bock. Some 2 or 3 weeks later Bock happened to be in the store and was greeted by Ruben Bokoff who asked if Bock had yet found other work. When Bock replied in the negative, Bokoff stated, "Maybe we will have something for you pretty soon. We'll let you know." Although the evidence shows that between April 19 and June 18, Respondent hired a number of part-time employees for its grocery and meat department,' 2 but none of these jobs were offered Bock. 2. Approximately 2 weeks after the incident in the parking lot, Company President Rubin Bokoff asked 'Food Handlers Union, Local 371, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO. 'The aforementioned case is now pending in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the Board's petition for enforcement of its order The case was argued June 4, but a decision has not yet issued. 'This is a private lot used only by employees and customers of Respondent. 'Costello also testified that Zulka made some vulgar remarks, which Zulka denied . I find it unnecessary to resolve that conflict 'The findings in this paragraph are based on a composite of the credited testimony of Costello, Bock and Rock Zulka denied that he asked Bock whether the latter had signed up. I do not credit his denial. "The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited testimony of Rock. Bokoff admitted that he had a conversation with Rock , but claimed that it occurred in the latter part of June According to Bokoff he had observed Costello and another man talking to Rock outside the store, in a manner he regarded as "pushing Rock into a corner", that about a half hour later he asked Rock if anyone was bothering him, and Rock replied in the negative. Bokoff denied that in his conversation with Rock, he mentioned Costello by name, and gave as his reason for this conversation that he had a friendly interest in the boy and did not want to see anyone "pushing him around." I do not credit Bokoff. "The complaint alleges but the answer denies that Owens was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act I find it unnecessary to resolve the issue because there is no evidence that Owens engaged in any conduct violative of the Act , nor did he make any statements which in any way bear upon the violations alleged. "The name, date of hire, and department in which employees were hired for part-time work in the period mentioned , is as follows BETTER VAL-U SUPERMARKETS The evidence also shows that about two weeks following Bock's discharge Union Agent Costello has some discussion with Produce Manager Owens and Assistant Store Manager Wattona, an admitted supervisor. In this discussion Costello remarked that it was too bad they had to let Bock go. To this Wattona replied, "Well, the next time you sign them up make sure they are not the good workers."" The parties stipulated that shortly before June 18, discussions took place between a representative - of the General Counsel and Counsel for Respondent, as to possible settlement of this case, and pursuant thereto the General Counsel on June 18, mailed to Counsel for Respondent a proposed settlement agreement. Respondent for reasons it deemed sufficient, declined to execute said agreement, and so notified the General Counsel. However, pursuant to the aforesaid discussions Respondent, on June 18 (and before it received the proposed settlement agreement from the General Counsel), wrote Bock offering him reinstatement to his former position, and giving him a period of 2 weeks to accept or reject the 173 offer. Bock admits that he received the letter shortly after its date, and that he did not reply to the same. He also admits that a few days after receipt of the letter he went to the store and told Produce Manager Owens that he would not accept the offer of reinstatement. Respondent's defense to this branch of the case is that Bock was terminated solely for economic reasons. The testimony is uncontradicted that in the normal operation of the produce department of a supermarket, the payroll in that department should not exceed 10 percent of its sales. The Bokoffs and Zulka testified that for some period payroll in the produce department had been running substantially in excess of 10 percent of sales, and to reduce payroll costs in the produce department, and for no other reason, Bock was selected for termination." In support of this contention Respondent produced a summary of the sales and payroll in the meat's and produce departments of the Rockville store, for the period commencing with the week ending January 6, and concluding with the week ending April 27. This summary discloses the following Meat Department Produce Department Week Sales Payroll Percentage Sales Payroll Percentage Ending January 6 $ 9609.56 $1080.58 11.2 $3002.16 $434.57 14.4 January 13 9551.06 1044.05 10.9 3046.31 412.66 13.5 January 20 10145.58 1058.94 10.4 3091.94 404.19 13.0 January 27 7617.89 824.79 10.8 2944.06 401.20 13.6 February 3 9308.51 815.62 8.7 3328.48 434.92 13.0 February 10 8788.23 852.03 9.6 3800.79 402.30 10.5 February 17 8235.12 834.71 10.1 2931.10 401.56 13.6 February 24 8744.71 878.26 10.0 3105.51 380.76 12.2 March 2 11383.02 830.60 7.2 3480.32 380.17 10.9 March 9 9229.63 883.56 9.5 3569.67 364.00 10.2 March 16 9949.16 839.05 8.4 3264.13 336.36 10.3 March 23 8438.79 809 97 9.5 2856.33 328.99 11.5 March 30 9714.80 856.67 8.8 3603.22 349.40 9.0 April 6 8776.41 848.89 9.6 2950.99 330.99 11.2 April 13 7318.95 812.49 11.1 2909 96 328.96 11.3 April 20 8146.97 774.05 9.5 2761.91 319.39 11.5 April 27 8157.75 745.09 9.1 2759.55 299.34 10.816 Name Date of Hire Dept. Tom Saughnessy Apr 26 Gr. Ronald Daley May 28 Gr. Cynthia Crenovesia June 3 Or. Patricia Doyle June 5 Meat Peter Liszawski June 8 Or. All of these were employed at the minimum hourly wage rate of $1.60. "This credited testimony of Costello stands undenied on the record. Neither Owens nor Wattona testified "Zulka explained that at the time there were only four employees in the produce department, Manager Owens, two full-tune employees, and Bock According to Zulka, it was not practical to dismiss or reduce the hours of Owens or the two full-time employees, hence the selection of Bock for termination was automatic "The testimony shows that in the meat department of a supermarket, payroll normally should not exceed 7 percent to 7 1/2 percent of sales. ,.It is to be noted that the summary does not show the experience for the two months the store was open prior to January 1968, nor the experience after to April 27. 174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Contentions and Concluding Findings 1. The 8(a)(1) allegations Upon the facts set forth in section A, 2, a, 1, above, I find and conclude that Zulka engaged in surveillance of Costello's efforts to have Bock sign a union card. In Atlanta Gas Light Company, 162 NLRB 436, the Board set forth the applicable rules where, as in the instant case, the Union elects to conduct its employee contacts in a "fish bowl" type of environment. In such a situation, the Board held, the mere presence of a management official at a place where the union happens to be conducting its activity, .. without more specific evidence that it was not for a legitimate purpose, or that it was for the purpose of observing the [activity], establishes neither surveillance . . . nor a reasonable basis for the impression of surveillance ... . The facts in the instant case, I find and conclude, establish the element which the Board found lacking in Atlanta Gas Light Company, supra, namely that Zulka stood on the sidewalk in front of the store with the intent and purpose of observing Costello's contact with Bock, and to impress Bock with the fact that management was watching his union activity. Zulka's remark to Bock, "Did you sign up okay," I find and conclude, under the circumstances of this case, plainly reveals that purpose." Bokoff's questioning of Rock as to whether Costello had talked to or questioned the latter, I find under the circumstnaces of this case, to constitute coercive interrogation proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Contrary to Respondent's contention, when viewed in the context of its entire course of conduct, Bokoff's question was more than an isolated and incidental enquiry. Respondent's conduct in the prior case, Zulka's conduct in the parking lot, the subsequent discharge of Bock which, as hereafter found was discriminatorily motivated, and the fact that no assurances were given Rock that there would be no reprisal for union activity, lead me to the conclusion that the interrogation here involved, was coercive. Radio Station WISN, 169 NLRB No. 97. 1 so find and conclude. 2. The 8(a)(3) allegation The evidence detailed above shows that Bock, an admittedly satisfactory employee, was discharged in mid-workweek, without prior notice, within 10 days after Zulka learned of Bock' s union activity when he observed the latter sign a union card. These factors - previously satisfactory employee, sudden discharge without prior notice or warning, in the midst of a workweek, shortly after the discovery of the employee's union activity - are the classic indicia of a discriminatorily motivated "Under the circumstances, I reject the General Counsel 's argument that the aforesaid remark by Zulka constituted coercive interrogation of Bock with respect to his union activities , but rather was meant by Zulka, and understood by Bock, to be no more than an off-hand remark. There was no reason for Zulka to interrogate Bock on this occasion because Zulka saw Bock sign the card, and Bock knew that Zulka had watched him do so discharge, and are sufficient to cast upon the Respondent the burden of going forward with evidence to establish that the discharge was not based on the employee' s union activity. To carry this burden Respondent relies on the exhibit set forth above, and the testimony of Zulka and the Bokoffs, as supporting its contention that the termination of Bock was brought about solely because payroll costs in the produce department exceeded 10 percent of sales. While the uncontradicted evidence is that payroll costs in the produce department were in excess of 10 percent for the entire period covered by the exhibit (except for the week ending March 30, when it was 9 percent), the record as a whole nonetheless convinces me that the motivating cause of Bock's discharge was his union activity, and that the alleged high percentage of payroll cost was nothing more than a pretext seized upon in an effort to obscure the true reason for the discharge I so find and conclude for the following reasons: 1. Bock reported for duty on February 26. In the 8 weeks prior to his hire the exhibit shows that the percentage of payroll to sales ranged from 12.2 to 14.4 (except the week ending February 10, when it was 10 5), and the average for the period is 12.9, yet to Respondent this percentage, which according to its testimony was intolerably high, offered no impediment to Bock's hire. On the other hand, in the 8 weeks that Bock worked, the percentage of payroll to sales dropped substantially, ranging from 10.2 to 11.5 (except in the week ending March 30, when it was 9 percent), or an average of 10 7; more nearly in line with Respondent's optimum figure.is While this reduction might have been explained by a showing that Bock , a part time employee, was taken on in substitution for one or more full-time employees, no such testimony was offered. Instead, Respondent relies upon the argument this was a new store, and that in the initial promotional period a higher percentage payroll is to be expected and tolerated. Harry Bokoff admitted, however, that operations normally stabilize after about four months, absent exceptional promotional activity. As the store here involved opened early in November 1967, the four months period expired with the end of February No evidence was offered as to exceptional promotional activity after that period. 2. Although Harry Bokoff testified that the desired percentage of payroll to sales in the meat department is 7 to 7 1/2 percent, and the evidence shows that during the period Bock was employed such percentage ranged from 8.4 to 11.1 (except the first week when the percentage was 7.2), for an average during that period of 9.2, there is no evidence that anyone was terminated in that department. 3. Although Respondent hired a number of part-time employees for the grocery department in the 60 day period following Bock' s termination," (see fn. 12, supra), none of these jobs were offered to Bock. Respondent gives a number of reasons for its failure to make such offers to "It is significant that in the week following Bock's termination the percentage of payroll to sales was 10 &, a figure which Bokoff claimed was too high. It is significant , also that the exhibit does not show, and no testimony was offered with respect to the experience after April 27 It is a fair inference that if the experience after April 27, demonstrated improvement from Respondent 's point of view, such evidence would have been offered. "Respondent also hired Constance- Archer on June 24, to work in the produce department, without offering such work to Bock However, as she BETTER VAL-U SUPERMARKETS Bock. Zulka claimed (1) that while Bock was an excellent employee in the produce department, he had no experience in the grocery department; (2) that work in the grocery department requires greater skill than does work in produce; (3) that a transfer from produce to grocery, even at his salary rate, would be regarded by him and his fellow employees as a demotion and cause a lowering of employee morale; and (4) that new employees for the grocery department were hired at $1.60 an hour, but it would have been required to pay Bock $1.70 an hour. I am unable to credit his testimony in that regard. As to (1), the evidence shows that Bock's application filed with Respondent, and which Zulka admittedly reviewed, disclosed that Bock applied for work as a stock boy and had about 2 1/2 months' experience in that work. Even assuming that Zulka had justifiable doubts about Bock's ability for such work, it is difficult to understand why he would not at least give this "wonderful employee," as Zulka described Bock, a chance to demonstrate whether he could do the work or not. The contention that a transfer from produce to grocery might be regarded as a demotion is difficult to understand if Zulka is correct in his claim that work in the produce department requires more skill than work in the grocery department. Respondent apparently does not recognize a difference in skills because it pays the same rate of pay for both jobs The final contention is even more difficult to understand. Zulka testified that it was Respondent's practice to hire new employees at the minimum rate of $1.60 an hour, and after 4 weeks to raise them to $1.70, the rate at which Bock was being paid. As Bock worked about 25 hours a week, the additional cost of retaining Bock over a new employee, would be about $10 for the 4-week period. In a business operation of the size conducted by Respondent,26 it strains credulity beyond the breaking point to believe that such a small sum, stood in the way of retaining an admittedly "wonderful employee," over a new employee whose value was yet to be demonstrated.21 Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record in the case, I make the following: II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is 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 Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 By engaging in surveillance of the Union's activities and of the activities of its employees in assisting or supporting the Union, and by interrogating an employee concerning his union activity, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in unfair labor was hired for full time, and after Bock had rejected Respondent's June 18 offer of reinstatement, I do not consider this as a job which Respondent should have offered Bock :*Admitted annual sales in excess of $500,000. 'Respondent's contention that the 8(a)(3) allegation must fall because General Counsel failed to prove that Bock's discharge was intended by Respondent, or had the effect of discouraging membership yi a labor organization, is without merit. That Bock's discharge had the proscribed effect may be infered, as I do, from the fact that discharge was discriminatorily motivated. Radio Officers Union v N.L.R.B, 347 U S. 17 N.L.R.B. v. Del E Webb Construction Company, 196 F 2d 702 (C A. 8), relied cn by Respondent in support of its contention , was decided before the Supreme Court's decision in Radio Officers, supra, and is plainly in conflict therewith. 175 practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discharging Gerald Bock, and failing and refusing until June 18, to reinstate him, Respondent discriminated against him in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. IIL THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices as above set forth, it will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom, and take affirmative action found necessary and designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent interfered with, coerced, and restrained its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, I shall, in view of the nature and extent of such violations, and the prior proceeding before the Board, recommend that Respondent be required to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. Having also found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Gerald Bock, I shall recommend that Respondent make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him, by paying him a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages, during the period of the discrimination against him, less his net earnings during such period, in accordance with the Board's formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 714. It will further be recommended that Respondent be required to preserve and on request make available to the Board and its agents, all payroll and other records necessary or useful in computing the amount of backpay due. Respondent having on June 18, offered reinstatement to Bock, which offer the latter declined, I shall not recommend that it be required to offer such reinstatement. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Better Val-U Supermarkets of Rockville, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, to. 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in surveillance of the Union activities of its employees , or in any conduct which can reasonably be calculated to convey to its employees the impression that their union activities are under its surveillance. (b) Coercively interrogating employees as to their membership in, views about or activities on behalf of Local 919, Retail Clerk's International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. (c) Discouraging membership in the aforesaid Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, by 176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discriminatorily discharging, or in any other manner discriminating against any employee in regard to hire, tenure, or any term or condition of employment. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and 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 said Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action found necessary and designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole Gerald Bock for any loss of earnings he suffered, as set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or useful in computing the amount of backpay due, as herein provided. (c) Post at its premises in Rockville, Connecticut, copies of the notice attached marked "Appendix.1122 Copies of said notice on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it 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." 231n the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read - "Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it 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 coercively question you as to your membership in, views about, or activities in support of Local 919, Retail Clerks Union, or any other Union. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in any union by discriminatorily discharging, or in any other manner discriminating against any employee in regard to hire, tenure, or any other term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT, in any other manner interfere with, restrain or coerce any of our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join or assist any union, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as to refrain from any and all such activity, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a union as a condition of empl'o'yment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of said Act. WE WILL make whole Gerald Bock for any loss of earnings he may have suffered, in the manner set forth in that section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy." All our employees are free to become or remain members of any union, or to refrain from becoming or remaining a member of any union. BETTER VAL-U STORES OF ROCKVILLE, 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, 20th Floor, John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Cambridge & New Sudbury Streets, Boston , Massachusetts '02203, Telephone 223-3353.