Goldblatt Bros., Inc.

GOLDBLATT BROS., INC. Goldblatt Bros., Inc. and Retail Store Employees Union Local 36, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-6737(l),(2),(3) February 25, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On October 29, 1968, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a brief in support of the exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and for the additional reasons set forth below hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified below. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the wage increase granted by the Respondent to the employees at its Benton Harbor store in May 1968, which was announced and made effective at a time when the Respondent was aware of the Union's organizing campaign, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Although, as found by the Trial Examiner, the business considerations advanced by the Respondent in justification of the increase are not free from doubt, the record reveals no basis for doubt that the wage increase was also prompted by reasons other than business considerations. The timing of the increase and the credited evidence that it was announced to the employees in the context of individual interviews in which they were questioned about their job satisfaction and gripes, and that some were admonished against the necessity of having to "go for any outside help", warrants the conclusion that the increase was predicated, at least in part, on the presence of the Union and the Respondent's desire to impress on the employees that it was the source of benefits which could be 747 granted or withheld on the basis of their union activities.' We similarly agree with the Trial Examiner that the reason advanced by the Respondent for the discharge of Ernestine Hampton was pretextual, and that her discharge violated Section 8(a)(3). The action promised by Hampton to Terry Butler in response to his change of mind about signing a union card, while indeed not phrased in the language of the parlor, must necessarily be viewed in the light of other evidence that Butler often engaged in jocular banter with Hampton, as well as with other employees. Moreover, contrary to the Respondent's contention that Hampton's remark constituted a serious threat of bodily harm to Butler, she assured him before the conversation concluded, and in response to his protestation that Hampton would not take the action promised, that no harm was done and that Butler had his rights. Butler, who admits to being a supervisor, agreed that he did not construe Hampton's remarks as serious, and the record also reveals that at a later time he agreed to sign a statement for Hampton that she had not threatened him. Nevertheless, within the hour following the conversation Butler reported to management that Hampton had threatened him with bodily harm. On the basis of Butler's report alone, and without affording Hampton an opportunity to explain, the Respondent made the decision to discharge her. Having made this decision the Respondent's management officials then summoned Hampton to the office, informed her of the complaint, and upon her reply of "Oh, Terry Butler," summarily dismissed an employee whose record was free from prior misconduct. On these facts, and in view of the Respondent's other unfair labor practice attesting its union animus, we find that Hampton's discharge was motivated not by the alleged misconduct, but in fact by her union activities.2 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 modified herein, and orders that the Respondent, Goldblatt Bros., Inc., Benton Harbor, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and reletter the following paragraphs accordingly: 'See Dorn's Transportation Company, Inc, 168 NLRB No 68; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc, 166 NLRB No. 36, and cases cited therein. 'In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the allegations of unlawful surveillance, and the discharge of Head, pro forma, and do not pass upon the allegations of unlawful interrogation, as to which the Trial Examiner failed to make findings. 174 NLRB No. 114 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR=RELATIONS BOARD (b) Notify the above-named employee, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of her 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. 2. Add the following as the last indented paragraph of the Appendix- WE WILL notify the above-named employee, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of her 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. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed May 8 and May 17, 1968, by Retail Store Employees Union, Local 36, herein the Union, against Goldblatt Bros., Inc., herein the Respondent, the General Counsel issued complaint dated July 30, 1968, alleging Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The answer of Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard by me at St. Joseph, Michigan on October 3 and 4, 1968. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties waived the filing of briefs and oral argument. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses while testifying, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS L THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is an Illinois corporation having its office and principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Respondent maintains other retail stores in the States of Indiana and Michigan engaged in the sale of clothing, household goods, notions and related products. The store at Benton Harbor, Michigan, is the only store involved in this proceeding. During a representative 12-month period Respondent had a gross volume of sales in excess of $500,000 at its Benton Harbor store. During the same period Respondent purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $100,000 which were transported to its Benton Harbor store from places outside the State of Michigan. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. (a) During a period starting on or about May 2, 1968, and continuing until at least May 17, 1968, the Respondent coercively interrogated its employees in its offices regarding their dissatisfactions with working conditions and promised them benefits in order to discourage their membership in, support for, and activities on behalf of the Charging Party. (b) On or about May 2, 1968, Respondent granted wage increases to its employees in order to discourage their membership in, support for, and activities on behalf of the Charging Party. (c) On or about May 6, 1968, Respondent through its supervisor and agent John,Fox engaged in acts of surveillance of a meeting of its employees which had been called at the Vincent Hotel in Benton Harbor, Michigan by the Charging Party. The complaint further alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Ernestine Hampton on May 2, 1968, and Carl Head on May 9, 1968, because said employees had assisted the Union or engaged in other protected activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.' B. Violations of Section 8(aX l ) During the early part of May employees were called into the office of Herbert A. Silver, manager of the Benton Harbor store, asked if they were happy about their working conditions and if they had any "gripes" and were also told they would receive a pay raise.' No mention was made of any union in these discussions although Chris Schieyer, one of the employees who tes`ified, stated he was told by Silver that "they" knew he was happy on his job and did not have to "go for any outside help." Pay raises were granted to all regular full-time employees in the week following May 4.' Chester Malin, Respondent's vice president and director of personnel, testified that he was present at the Benton Harbor store on May 1 and 2 on a visit he described as routine. One of his purposes was to explain Respondent's profit-sharing plan to the employees and a second was to make a study of wage rates in the Benton Harbor area to determine if Respondent's rates were competitive. It was as a result of this study that raises were given employees at the Benton Harbor store. Silver, however, testified that he had made such a study in April and that as a result of this study, Respondent granted its wage increases. Both Malin and Silver knew at the time the pay raises were granted that the Union was attempting to organize the store. Malin further testified that during the month of May wage increases were granted employees at Respondent's Lake Meadows, Hammond, Lincoln and Belmont stores and that in the month of June, 10 to 12 other stores were granted wage increases and that during July some 12 to 15 stores were granted increases. A general wage increase had been granted at the Benton Harbor store in February to conform to the increase in the federal minimum wage. The third allegation of the complaint relating to 8(a)(1) violations refers to surveillance of a union meeting on the part of John Fox, operating superintendent of the store III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in the following respects: 'Unless otherwise noted all dates refer to 1968. 'Employees who testified to these interviews with Silver were Beverly Sherwood, Ron Papke, Joyce Anderson and Chris Schreyer it was stipulated that substantially all of the full-time employees were called into Silver's office during the week ending May 4 and notified of the raise The raise was made effective the following week GOLDBLATT BROS., INC. and admittedly a supervisor, on May 6 Jesse Brent testified that he worked in stock under the immediate supervision of Fox and that it was among his duties to lock up on the nights he worked and that he usually left the building at the same time as Fox. On the evening of May 6, Brent left the building and drove to the Vincent Hotel, located at Sixth and Main Streets in Brenton Harbor for the purpose of attending a union meeting. At Sixth and Main, he recognized Fox in his (Fox's) car and observed Fox looking at the Vincent Hotel from his car with binoculars. Brent was driving west on Sixth Street and Fox's car was parked on Sixth. Brent further testified that shortly after he passed Fox's car, Fox pulled out of the position in which he was parked and drove off. John Fox testified that he saw Jesse Brent downtown on the evening of May 6 as he was getting into his own car. He had parked downtown to do some shopping at J.C. Penney. He denied that he observed the Vincent Hotel through binoculars and that anyone was in the car with him at the time. This is all the testimony relating to this allegation of the complaint C. Violations of Section 8(a)(3) 1. The discharge of Hampton Ernestine Hampton testified that she had been employed by Respondent at its Benton Harbor store from October of 1966 until she was terminated on May 2, 1968. At the time she was terminated she was employed in ladies sportswear as a saleslady. She first "became acquainted with the Union" about one month before she was terminated, which would be during the month of April. She met Mr. Barry, a union organizer, and from him she obtained union authorization cards to be signed by other employees. These cards she circulated in Respondent's parking lot and at the timeclock near the ladies' room. She estimated that she distributed a total of 100 cards. On May 1, Terry Butler, employed as display manager by Respondent, came to her and told her he had a union card and that he would fill it out, sign it and give it to her the next day in the parking lot. The next day he came to her while she was standing by the cash register with Judy Marshall, her department head, gave her the card and told her he was not going to sign it. He told her he had discussed it with his mother-in-law and decided the Union would not do him any good because he would have to paint with smaller brushes and that he was a supervisor and could not sign. Hampton then stated: "Okay. We need a union in this store, Terry, and we are going to get a union in it . You are going to benefit by it. `And,' I said, `when we do 1[ am going to meet you in the lot and kick your ass.' Just like that." Butler told her she would not do that and she told him there was no harm done and that he had his rights.' She fixed the time of this conversation as about 1.30 p.m. When she returned from her supper hour she was told she had been paged and she went to the office where Silver, Malin and Windner were ' sitting. Silver told her they had a complaint that she had threatened another employee. Hampton said, "Oh, Terry Butler " Silver replied in the affirmative, told her they had her money 'On cross-examination Hampton testified that Butler did not appear frightened when she threatened to kick him and that they "teased" each other alot and that she thought nothing of it 749 and asked her to sign certain papers, which she signed. This was her complete termination interview. Herbert Silver testified that he discharged Hampton after she returned from supper on May 2 and that she was discharged in the presence of Malin and Windner. (Silver described Windner as his merchandise man). The decision to terminate her was made before she was summoned to his office.' The decision was made after Terry Butler visited his office at about 2:30 p.m. on May 2 and reported that Hampton had threatened him with bodily harm. Without seeking Hampton's version of the threat, Silver put in a call to Respondent's attorney, Frederick N. Richman, in Chicago and, because he knew Hampton was engaged in union activities, asked if he was within his rights in firing her for threatening a fellow-employee. When advised that he was, he made the decision and when Hampton returned from supper she was called to his office and precipitately terminated. Terry Butler testified that he was employed as display manager for Respondent in May, 1968. On May 2, he gave Ernestine Hampton an unsigned union card, telling her that he could not fill it out and that he did not think he would be able to be in the Union. Hampton then told him that after the Union got in she would personally "wallop my ass." The conversation took place in the sportswear department of the store and after Butler returned from lunch. While he did not take the threat seriously at the time the more he thought about it the more seriously he took it and went to Silver's office and reported it to Silver in the presence of Malin.6 2. The discharge of Head Carl Head testified that he was employed by Respondent from November of 1967 until May 9, 1968. On February 13, 1968, he was made department head in the marking room. About 2 weeks prior to his termination he had a conversation with Ernestine Hampton in which she asked him if he had signed a union card and he told her that he was willing to sign one. The next day he obtained six cards from Hampton. He signed one card which he returned to Hampton and gave the others to the girls who were working in the marking room. Terry Butler was present when he distributed the cards and asked him what they were. He told Butler they were union cards and that the employees were trying to get a union in. The next day he asked Hampton for more cards and tried to get other employees to sign them. This was the extent of this union activity. On May 1, as he was leaving work, Frank Fardello, employed in the garden shop, stopped him and asked him if he knew he was going to be replaced by Paul Ohman, dock manager. The following day he saw John Fox, operations manager, asked him if he was going to be replaced and told Fox to get Ohman in the marking room if he was to replace him. At about 3 p.m. on May 2 Silver called him to his office and asked him what he was "mad about." He also told him it was not true that he was going to be replaced but that he had been missing too much time and was not doing the job right. Head testified that he had been put in the marking room in January and had no training when he was assigned to it. Silver told 'Silver testified that Hampton was satisfactory in sales and that he had had no prior occasion to reprimand her. 'Butler also testified that sonic time after her discharge, Hampton asked him if he would sign a statement that she had not threatened him and that he agreed to do so No such statement was ever signed. 750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD him they would give him one more week "to get it straightened up and cleaned up."' On Thursday, May 9, he was called to Silver's office where Fox and Windner were present. Silver told him they had to let him go because he could not handle the job. Head asked Silver if it was because of the Union and was told it was not. Silver also told him that the workload was heavier in his department than on the previous week and paid him off. Silver testified that he had put Head in charge of the marking room in February and that he was discharged on May 9 because he could not do the job. In his corrective interview on May 2 Head admitted to Silver that he was not a pusher and Silver stated that when his work did not show improvement after one more week he was fired. John Fox testified that he was operating superintendent at the Benton Harbor store and was the immediate supervisor of Carl Head and that on May 2 Head came to him and asked if he was going to be replaced. Fox told him they were considering it because his work was not satisfactory. He was discharged the following week by Silver. D. Conclusions 1. As to violations of 8(a)(1) I find that the wage increases granted employees in the week following May 4 were granted, at least in part, to discourage membership in the Union. Granted that the issue is not free from doubt, this conclusion rests on the fact that the increase was granted shortly after union organization had been started in the plant,' that it was not a part of any general wage increase program affecting all stores' and there is ambiguity in the testimony of Silver and Malin as to the necessity for the increases to meet competitive wage standards in the area. In reaching this conclusion I have considered the fact that the wage program of Respondent was on a store-to-store basis and that wage increases were granted at other stores in Respondent's chain during the same and the following months. I find further support for this finding in the interviews with employees advising them of the raise in which they were asked if they were happy with their jobs and if they had any gripes." I find that by promising and granting its employees a wage increase during the month of May, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act." As to the allegation of surveillance of union activity by Fox on May 6, I do not find General Counsel sustained his burden of proof. The issue is largely one of credibility between Fox and Brent. It is true that Fox was parked in the vicinity of the Vincent Hotel (where a union meeting 'On cross-examination Head testified that his interview with Silver on May 2 was a "corrective interview," that he had been absent some 10 or 12 times and that he did not think he was right for the job because he was not a pusher and did not know the job 'Knowledge of union activity on the part of Respondent was admitted as early as May 2 'Cf. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 165 NLRB No. 127 "Specifically I refer to the credited testimony of Ron Papke that Silver, when advising him of the raise , asked him if there was any reason why they (the employees) should need outside help for anything. See also Schieyer's testimony to the same effect, quoted supra "In reaching this and the other conclusions herein I have given weight to the testimony of Malin that Respondent had never been found guilty of unfair labor practices at any of its stores . Cf. Goldblatt Bros. Inc., 135 NLRB 153, in which the Board, on remand , found Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. was being held) on the night of May 6 It was equally true that he gave a plausible reason (shopping at the J'C. Penney store) for being there. I do credit Fox's testimony that he had no binoculars and that he was not observing the hotel through binoculars. I shall recommend that paragraph 8(c) of the complaint be dismissed. 2. As to violations of Section 8(a)(3) a. The discharge of Hampton The facts are brief and not seriously in dispute. Hampton, a known organizer for the Union, was told by Butler that he had a union card, would sign it and give it to her the next day. The next day, May 2, he told her he would not sign the card, gave it to her and she tore it up. She then threatened that, if the Union came in, she would kick his ass.12 Butler, after thinking over the threat for perhaps an hour decided it was not to be taken lightly and reported it to Silver." Malin, Respondent's vice president, happened to be visiting the Benton Harbor store that day, and was present. Silver, and presumably Malin, accepted the threat at face value and, after conferring with Respondent's attorney, decided to discharge Hampton without further inquiry or investigation. She was discharged as above set forth when she returned from supper I do not believe that Hampton's threat to Butler was the actual cause for discharge but rather that it was a pretext seized by Respondent to rid itself of a known and outstanding union adherent. The threat and its phraseology is now a part of a common parlance and used more to express displeasure than to convey the intent of actual bodily harm. Hampton testified that she used the expression in this sense and Butler apparently so understood it until he had time to think it over. This was the opinion of the other employees who heard of the threat.' ° Since the record is clear that she was at least satisfactory in sales and had received no prior reprimands for her conduct. I can only conclude that it was her union activity that caused her termination. Men as experienced in the handling of personnel as Silver and Malin must be aware that vulgarity of language is as commonplace in the plant, the shop, and the store as it is in country clubs, hunt clubs and Park Avenue apartments. I have also considered the fact that the decision to discharge Hampton was made without inquiry as to the truth of the charge and before Hampton was even summoned to Silver's office. She was summoned there only to complete the formalities of a termination already agreed upon. "Butler testified that she would "wallop" his ass I do not find this disparity in testimony sufficiently substantial to call for a resolution of the language employed "No proper evaluation of the threat can be made without an appraisal of the physical characteristics of the parties involved for ordinarily such a threat made by a female employee toward a male employee would receive scant consideration Hampton was, however, about 5'10" in height and amply but well proportioned Butler, on the other hand , stood about 5'4" and testified that he weighed 120 pounds Hampton appeared fully capable, physically, of implementing her threat effectively. The threat, however, was directed to that portion of the anatomy best cushioned to receive it so danger of serious injury was minimal But Butler, on the other hand, gave the appearance during his testimony of being more than somewhat fright prone It should also be noted that Hampton, from her demeanor as a witness, gave no indication that she was either ill-tempered or hot-tempered The testimony of her fellow-employees suggests that she was both well-liked and respected -Ron Papke, Joyce Anderson and Beverly Sherwood so testified GOLDBLATT BROS., INC. I find that the discharge of Hampton on May 2 violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. b. The discharge of Head I do not find that the discharge of Head was motivated by discrimination. While it is true that Head, according to his own testimony, distributed union cards to other employees, there is no evidence that this activity was known to any other representatives of management except John Fox and that this was not known of Fox until after May 2, the date on which Head had his corrective interview. But on Head's own testimony it appears that he was not a satisfactory employee as department head of the marking room.15 He had a record of frequent absenteeism, his department was behind and had to work overtime, and he admitted that he was not a "pusher." In view of these facts his participation in union activity does not suffice to protect him from discharge for cause. It may be true that the Respondent's management was not sympathetic to his complaint of lack of training in the job but, then, it is not required to be. I do not find that the discharge of Carl Head violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. W. THE REMEDY Having found the Respondent engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices it shall be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found the Respondent unlawfully discharged Ernestine Hampton because of her union or other concerted activity and in order to discourage membership in a labor organization I shall recommend that Respondent offer her full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges and make her whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practices against her. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By promising and granting its employees a wage increase for the purpose of discouraging their union membership Respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 2. By discharging Ernestine Hampton because of her union membership and other concerted activity and in order to discourage membership in the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. "Although supervisory status bears no import on the issues of the case the evidence clearly establishes that department heads were not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER 751 It is hereby recommended that the Respondent, Goldblatt Bros., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Promising and granting its employees wage increases to discourage membership in Retail Store Employees Union, Local 36. (b) Discriminating against any employee in regard to his hire or other term or condition of employment to discourage membership in said Union. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer Ernestine Hampton full and immediate reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges and make her whole for any loss of pay or other monetary loss she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against her, in the manner set forth in that part of this Decision entitled, "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and 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 store at Benton Harbor, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained 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 7, in writing within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all allegations of the complaint not specifically found to be violations of the Act shall be dismissed. ,.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 7, 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: 752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT promise or give our employees wage increases to discourage membership in RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 36, or any other union. WE WILL NOT discharge any employee because he has engaged in union activity or become a member of any union. WE WILL offer Ernestine Hampton her job back without loss of seniority or other rights and privileges and we will give her backpay for any loss of pay she may have suffered since we fired her. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such right might be affected by a lawful union-security clause executed between Respondent and a labor organization in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) and Section 7 of the Act Dated By - GOLDBLATT BROS. INC. (BENTON HARBOR STORE) (Employer) (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, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone Number 313-226-3200.