Crown Discount Department Stores

934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Crown Discount Department Stores; Crown Merchants Association ; H & C Automotive, Inc.; Disc Donuts, Inc.; Century Camera , Inc.; Laurel Sales, Inc.; Lawless Candy Co.; H. F. D., Inc.; J. & J. Furniture, Inc.; Daylin, Inc.; Elgin Jewelers, Inc.; Phil Siegel ; Burks Appliances ; Unishops, Inc.; Benos, Inc.; Pat Mandarino; Karis Shoes Ltd.; United Merchandise , Inc.; SAS, Inc.; Bar- bara Lynn Stores, Inc.; M . Cohen ; Cleaning Bar, Inc.; and Value Drug, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union, Local 899 and Retail Clerks Union, Local 905, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO Southern California Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO (Crown Discount Department Stores; Crown Merchants Association ; H & C Automotive , Inc.; Disc Donuts, Inc.; Century Camera , Inc.; Laurel Sales, Inc.; Lawless Candy Co.; H. F. D. Inc .; J. & J. Furniture, Inc.; Daylin , Inc.; Elgin Jewelers, Inc.; Phil Siegel ; Burks Appliances; Unishops, Inc.; Benos, Inc.; Pat Mandarino ; Karls Shoes Ltd.; United Merchandise , Inc.; SAS, Inc.; Barbara Lynn Stores, Inc.; M . Cohen ; Cleaning Bar, Inc.; and Value Drug, Inc.) and Retail Clerks Union, Local 899 and Retail Clerks Union, Local 905, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO. Cases 31-CA-732 and 31-CB-247 July 1, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On February 7, 1968, Trial Examiner David E. Davis issued his Decision in the above -entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had en- gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion , as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent Employers' ' The request of the Respondent Employers for oral argument is hereby denied , as the record and the briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties r The Respondent Union filed a letter with the Board in which it stated it adopted and relied on the exceptions and brief filed by the Respondent Em- ployers ' We do not, however, adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusions that the threats of discharge involved herein violated either Sec 8 (a)(3) or 8(b)(2) of the Act ' The Trial Examiner found that prior to May 27, 1967, the date Respon- dent Union started organizing Respondent Employers ' employees, there was an understanding between those parties paving the way for the Union's "whirlwind " organizational campaign This finding is based solely on the and General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions 3 and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modification.4 As the record shows, Crown operates it depart- ment stores at Goleta and Gardena, California, under license arrangements with the companies named in the complaint, each of which operates a department at one or both of the stores. It further appears that Crown and the individual licensees are the joint employers of the employees in each de- partment, that it was those employees whom the Respondent Union sought to organize , claimed to represent, and who were covered by the contract between it and Crown executed on June 1, 1967. Furthermore, Chertok, a vice president of Crown, signed that contract on behalf of Crown Merchants Association which consists of Employers operating departments in Crown Discount Department Stores at the locations herein involved. In view of the above we find merit in the General Counsel's ex- ceptions to the failure of the Trial Examiner to name each individual Employer Respondent in his Recommended Order, and to require each such Respondent to sign , post, and maintain a copy of the "Notice to All Employees" attached as Appen- dix A to the Trial Examiner's Decision. Con- sequently, we shall make the necessary corrections in our Order below. ORDER A. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National testimony of Supervisor Cockrum to the effect that she attended a meeting on Friday night , May 26, at which her superior mentioned the Union's or- ganizational interests However, on cross-examination Cockrum changed her testimony, stating the first she heard of the Union was on May 27. It is apparent from the record that she was unclear concerning what had in fact taken place with respect to the matter here being considered and that she was possibly confused concerning those events occurnng Friday night and those occurring Saturday morning after the Union had openly launched its campaign Consequently, we have concluded that her testimony is not suf- ficient to support a finding that the Respondents had some prior un- derstanding about, or had prearranged , the Union's organizing campaign, and'we do not adopt the Trial Examiner 's finding to that effect 172 NLRB No. 89 CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES 935 Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order part A of the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as here modified , and hereby orders that Crown Discount Department Stores; Crown Merchants As- sociation ; H & C Automotive , Inc.; Disc Donuts, Inc.; Laurel Sales, Inc.; Lawless Candy Co.; U. S. Sewing Centers; Daylin , Inc.; Phil Siegel ; Burks Ap- pliances; Benos, Inc.; Karls Shoes, Ltd .; SAS, Inc.; Barbara Lynn Stores, Inc.; M. Cohen ; Cleaning Bar, Inc.; Century Camera, Inc.; J. & J . Furniture, Inc.; Elgin Jewelers, Inc.; Unishops, Inc.; Pat Mandarino; United Merchandise , Inc.; and Value Drug, Inc.; their officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order , as modified: Paragraph A, 2, (b), of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order is modified to read as fol- lows: "Post at their premises at Gardena and/or Goleta, California , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent Em- ployers' representatives ,6 shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them 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 Employers to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other material." B. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order part B of the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respondent Southern California Joint Board , Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in part B of the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order. ' In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforc- ing an Order " If a respondent licensee employer does not maintain a place of business at both the Gardena and Goleta stores , it shall be required to sign and post only those notices to be posted at the store where it does maintain such place of business TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID E. DAVIS, Trial Examiner : By an original charge filed on June 7, 1967,1 amended on July 24, 1967, Retail Clerks Union, Local 899, and Retail Clerks Union , Local 905, herein sometimes called the Charging Unions or the Retail Clerks, alleged that Crown Discount Department Stores and other Employers,2 herein collectively referred to as Respondent Crown , engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. On June 12, 1967, the Retail Clerks filed a charge, amended on July 24, 1967, against Southern California Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO , herein called Respondent Union , alleging that Respondent Union engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1) and (2) of the Act. The General Counsel of the National Labor Rela- tions Board, herein called the Board , by the Re- gional Director of the Board 's Region 31, on Au- gust 3, 1967, issued a consolidated complaint in the above cases , 31-CA-732 and 31-CB-247, alleging that since on or about May 20 , 1967, Respondent Crown interfered with employees ' Section 7 rights by unlawful interrogation , threats of reprisal, sol- iciting employees to support Respondent Union, and threatening employees with reprisal if they sup- ported the Retail Clerks . The complaint further al- leged that the Respondent Union threatened em- ployees with loss of employment and employment opportunities if they did not join Respondent Union, that on or about June 1, Respondent Crown and Respondent Union executed a collective-bar- gaining agreement which accorded recognition to the Respondent Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent Crown 's employees in its Gardena and Goleta stores, that this agreement included a union -security provision , and that at the time said agreement was entered into the Respon- dent Union did not represent an uncoerced majori- ty of Crown's employees in the Gardena and Goleta stores.3 Respondent Crown 's answer essentially con- stituted a denial that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices and it averred that it had not given effect to the union-security provision , nor had Respondent Crown deducted or collected dues and initiation fees from employees subject to the collec- tive-bargaining agreement. The Respondent Union 's answer was similar to that of Crown's. All dates referred to herein are for the year 1967 unless otherwise specified ' Crown Merchants Association, H & C Automotive , Inc., Disc Donuts, Inc Century Camera , Inc.; Laurel Sales, Inc., Lawless Candy Co., H. F. D., Inc., J. & J. Furniture, Inc , Daylin, Inc.; Elgin Jewelers, Inc.; Phil Siegel, Burks Appliances, Unishops, Inc., Benos, Inc , Pat Mandarino , Karles Shoes Ltd , United Merchandise , Inc., SAS , Inc., Barbara Lynn Stores, Inc., M. Cohen, Cleaning'Bar, Inc.; and Value Drug, Inc. ' The complaint was amended in certain respects during the course of the hearing pertaining to the identity of various employers and names of su- pervisors 936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Issues The principal issues may be summarized as fol- lows: 1. Did Crown afford unlawful assistance and support to Respondent Union 's organizational cam- paign among Crown 's employees in the Gardena and Goleta stores? 2. Did Crown and Respondent Union engage in conduct violative of the Act to induce employees of the Gardena and Goleta stores to join , assist, or authorize Respondent Union to act as their collec- tive-bargaining representative? 3. Did Respondent Union represent an un- coerced majority when Crown recognized Respon- dent Union as the collective -bargaining representa- tive of Crown 's employees in the Gardena and Goleta stores? 4. Was the collective -bargaining agreement en- tered into on June 1, 1967, between Respondent Crown and Respondent Union violative of the Act? A hearing was conducted before Trial Examiner David E. Davis on October 31 and November 3 at Los Angeles , California, and November 2 at Santa Barbara, California . At the hearing all parties were represented and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence , to examine witnesses , to argue orally , and to file briefs. In oral arguments presented at the close of the General Counsel 's case , Respondent Union and Crown urged dismissal of the complaint in its en- tirety . The General Counsel opposed dismissal con- tending that the evidence warranted findings as charged with the exception of paragraph 13 of the consolidated complaint . As the General Counsel joined Respondents in requesting dismissal of para- graph 13 of the consolidated complaint, I granted the motion to dismiss that paragraph . All other mo- tions to dismiss were denied without prejudice to renew them at the close of the hearing. Sub- sequently , at the close of the hearing, counsel renewed the motions to dismiss . In view of the disposition of the issues on the merits in this Deci- sion and on the grounds stated herein , the motions to dismiss are herewith denied. Briefs have been received from the parties and have been carefully considered . Upon the entire record4 and the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT CROWN Crown Discount Department Stores is a Califor- nia corporation operating a chain of retail depart- ment stores including one at Gardena, California, and one at Goleta, California , the only two loca- tions involved in these proceedings . In the course and conduct of its business , Crown Discount De- partment Stores annually has gross sales in excess of $500 ,000 and annually purchases and receives goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of California. At all times material herein Crown Merchants Association has consisted - of all Em- ployers operating diverse departments in Crown Discount Department Stores in Goleta and Gardena, California , under license agreements with Crown Discount Department Stores, as follows: Goleta H & C Automotive , Inc.-Automotive Disc Donuts, Inc.-Bakery Laurel Sales , Inc.-Camera and records Lawless Candy Co.-Candy U. S. Sewing Centers -Domestics Daylin , Inc.-Hardware and drugs Phil Siegel-Jewelry Burks Appliances-Appliances Benos , Inc.-Men's Karls Shoes Ltd.-Shoes SAS, Inc.-Sporting goods Barbara Lynn Stores, Inc.-Women's M. Cohen-Children's Cleaning Bar, Inc .-Cleaners Gardena H & C Automotive, Inc.-Automotive Disc Donuts, Inc.-Bakery Century Camera, Inc.-Camera Lawless Candy Co.-Candy J. & J. Furniture, Inc.-Furniture Daylin, Inc.-Hardware and drugs Elgin Jewelers, Inc.-Jewelry Burks Appliances-Appliances Unishops, Inc.-Men's Laurel Sales, Inc.-Records Pat Mandarino-Sewing Karls Shoes Ltd.-Shoes United Merchandise , Inc.-Sporting goods Barbara Lynn Stores, Inc.-Women's M. Cohen-Chignon's Cleaning Bar, Inc .-Cleaners Volume D.-Domestics Pursuant to the allegations of the complaint and admissions contained in the answers of Crown and Respondent Union , as well as stipulations entered into during the course of the hearing , it is found that Crown Discount Department Stores, Crown Merchants Association , and the various licensees named above , herein collectively referred to as Crown , constitute joint employers engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I find that it would effectuate the pur- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. ' Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT STORES 937 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Retail Clerks Union, Local 899, and Retail Clerks Union, Local 905, and Southern California Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent Union, and each of them have been and are, at all times mentioned herein, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Crown's Version of Events Leading to Execution of the Agreement With Respondent Union5 The active executive of the two stores of Crown involved in these proceedings , at all times material herein, was Lewis Chertok, vice president and general manager of Crown Discount Department Stores, who testified to considerable experience as a management negotiator . Chertok maintains his office at the Gardena store. There are six California stores in the Crown Discount chain located in Santa Ana, Gardena, Goleta, Huntington Beach, Pacoima, and Compton . Employees in the Pacoima, Santa Ana, and Huntington Beach stores currently are represented by a local of the Retail Clerks, other than either of the charging locals.6 Chertok testified that he first learned of the Respondent Union 's organizational drive in the Gardena and Goleta stores on Saturday morning , May 27; that outdoor sales were planned for that weekend which included the holiday of May 30; that minutes after opening on the morning of May 27, Sam Lesoff, the manager of the Gardena store, informed him that there were eight or nine persons from the Respon- dent Union in the store for the purpose of organiz- ing the employees. He told Lesoff to usher them into his office. Chertok could not recall any of the names of the organizers except Norman Twist and Virginia Hoffman. Chertok testified that he told the group of organizers that it was unfair to come into the store on a holiday weekend as it would disrupt business at a crucial period of the year but that he was willing to arrange for them to come back after the holiday. Twist, according to Chertok, replied in a very firm manner that they were going to stay there and talk to the employees, that they would stay in the snack bar and the parking lot,7 and that the organizing would be conducted quietly. Cher- tok then stated that if he could not dissuade them from commencing the organizing drive at that time, he requested them to be as unobtrusive as possible, not to speak to more than one person, or to take more than one person at a time from any one de- partment. Twist assured Chertok that this would be done. Twist also informed him that at the same time the Goleta store was being visited by another group of Respondent Union's organizers for the same purpose. Chertok instructed Lesoff, who was present dur- ing the above-described conference, to carry out the arrangements made . Shortly thereafter Chertok received a telephone call from Howard Cohen, Crown's manager of the Goleta store. Cohen in- formed him of the presence of Respondent Union's organizers at Goleta and Chertok, in turn, informed Cohen of his discussion with the organizers in Gardena, instructing Cohen to have a similar con- versation with the union organizers at Goleta. Cher- tok, thereafter, visited Goleta that day about noon- time, remaining there until about 5 p.m. On Monday, May 29, Chertok received a telephone call from Leonard Levy, a representative of Respondent Union. Levy demanded immediate recognition of Crown's employees in the Gardena and Goleta stores, claiming that Respondent Union represented an overwhelming majority. Chertok in- formed Levy that the claim would have to be proved but added that if the claim was substan- tiated beyond a reasonable doubt, Crown would recognize Respondent Union as the exclusive col- lective-bargaining representative of the employees at the two stores. Later that day Chertok received a telegram from Harry Block , manager of Respon- dent Union, which contained a claim of majority status and a demand for recognition." Later that same day in another conversation with Levy, Chertok agreed to a card check to be con- ducted by Harry Fine, vice president of the Manu- facturers' Bank, in Fine's office on Wednesday, May 31. Chertok confirmed this arrangement via a telegram addressed to Levy.' Chertok further testified that when he reached his office on May 30, Lesoff once again informed him that the organizers were there and that he had another conversation with the group of organizers. The organizers informed Chertok that they were there to see those persons they had been unable to contact on May 27; Chertok, after protesting that business was being disrupted, called four or five de- partment managers into his office in the presence of the organizers and told the managers of his ar- rangements with regard to the manner in which the organizers would approach employees. Chertok stated that he did not advise the managers that Crown favored the Union or to assist in the procurement of signatures. On May 31, at the appointed hour, Chertok brought a current payroll list to Fine's office.10 Fine, in Chertok's and Block's presence, made a check of authorization cards furnished by Block against the payroll and announced that approxi- mately 80 of the 120 employees on the payroll had ' Primarily reflecting the testimony of Lewis Chertok 8 Resp Crown Exh i ° Pacoima, Local 770; Santa Ana and Huntington Beach , Local 324 ° Resp Crown Exh 2 The sale, being an outdoor sale, occupied a good portion of the parking 10 Resp Crown Exh 3 lot and 60 percent of the employees, according to Chertok, were stationed in the parking lot 938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD signed union authorization cards. At the conclusion of the count, Block informed Chertok that he would notify him of the date for commencing negotiations. Chertok replied that he was shortly planning a trip to Crown's parent corporation in New York and would be gone for 30 days. As a result, Block called Chertok 2 hours later and made arrangements with Chertok to commence negotia- tions the same day, continuing into the night if necessary. Negotiations were conducted in Levy's office with Levy as the principal negotiator for Respondent Union, although Twist and Block ap- peared for short periods. Negotiations continued into Wednesday night and were concluded Thursday, June 1, about noontime when agree- ments were signed." It was stipulated that Retail Clerks Union Local 905 filed a representation petition for the Gardena store on June 5 which was docketed as Case 31-RC-589, that notice of the filing of the petition was sent to Crown's Gardena store on June 6, that it was amended on June 15 to encompass both the Gardena and Goleta stores, and that the petition is still pending. Chertok testified that receipt of the June 6 notice of the original petition was the first knowledge he had that the Retail Clerks were interested in or- ganizing the Goleta and Gardena stores. Chertok further testified that the agreement, as executed with the Respondent Union , contained a union- shop clause requiring membership in Respondent Union as a condition of employment; that he was told unofficially that it was not being enforced; and that he has never been instructed to release any employee or to make any payroll deductions pur- suant to the checkoff proviso in the agreement. B. Additional Evidence of Respondent Union's Organizational Campaign and Evidence of Employer Assistance Leonard Applebaum, when called as a witness by the General Counsel, testified that he was con- troller of all stores of Crown Discount Department Stores including those in Gardena and Goleta; that in May he was introduced to a group of men and women associated with the Respondent Union which included Virginia Hoffman; that on May 29 he had a conversation with several employees of the Barbara Lynn12 department at the snack bar. Ruth Wahl, Florence Perkins, and Janet Farmer, as well as several others whose names Applebaum could not remember, were present. He testified that one of the girls told him that Florence Perkins, an admitted supervisor under the Act, had sent her to the snack bar; that the girls talked to Hoffman at the snack bar and that he saw them sign authoriza- tion cards on behalf of Respondent Union; that he introduced a representative of Respondent Union to Farmer and was later informed by the represen- tative that Farmer did not sign an authorization card; and that he told Chertok of Farmer's failure to sign and Chertok said he would take care of it.13 Howard Cohen was called as a witness by the General Counsel. He testified that during May and June 1967 he was Crown's store manager at Goleta; that on Saturday, May 27, the day of the outdoor sale, he had a conversation with Madeline Cockrum, the manager of the ladies' department and one or two other managers of other depart- ments;'" that he told several of the department managers there would be some union representa- tives coming into their departments to talk to their employees and, as long as they didn't interrupt the flow of business, they could speak to their em- ployees; that he did not personally speak to any em- ployees about the matter except a man named Burke who was assistant manager of the TV depart- ment; that early in June he observed some Retail Clerks representatives in the store talking to em- ployees and he told them they had received a notice from the National Labor Relations Board and he felt as long as the Board was in the situation the Retail Clerks could not talk to the employees; that he checked with Applebaum by phone and was told there was a contract with Respondent Union and the Retail Clerks had no business talking to any employees at that time;` that he did not like the way the Retail Clerks " sneaked " into the store, un- like the Respondent Union's representatives who cleared with him before approaching employees; and that he felt the Retail Clerks should have spoken to him first. On examination by Retail Clerks counsel, Cohen testified that the Retail Clerks representatives did talk to him before circu- lating among the employees and that he told them that as long as they didn't take the employees away from their customers it was all right-but that he would talk to the main office to doublecheck.16 Madeline Cockrum, manager for Barbara Lynn, was called by the General Counsel and testified that she had a conversation about union representation with Howard Cohen the night before the outdoor sale; that Cohen called her Saturday morning and told her the union representatives were there; that when she arrived at the store on Saturday morning GC Exh 2 A licensee of Crown Discount Department Stores at the Goleta and Gardena stores Other testimony indicates that Barbara Lynn is the parent company of Crown Discount Department Stores " 1 find this to be Applebaum's testimony even though Applebaum withdrew the latter part of his answer later in his examination He was an extremely reluctant witness, raising hypertechnical objections to questions As a result of his demeanor on the witness stand , I credit his testimony only to the extent indicated " Managers of departments which were licensees of Crown Discount De- partment Stores 'S Later Cohen denied that Applebaum informed him there was a con- tract I do not credit this denial 16 It is apparent that thereafter Cohen called and talked with Applebaum and then informed the Retail Clerks representatives that they could not talk to the employees CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES Cohen asked her to introduce the union representa- tives to the employees; that she herself signed a union card on the following day; that she asked Diane Pierce, one of the employees, if she had signed a card because she learned from talking with the girls that Pierce could not decide one way or another; that Pierce said she had signed; that she did not remember whether or not she had ever had Pierce's card in her possession; that she may have turned over one or more cards signed by employees to the union representatives but had no memory of it; that the night before when she talked with Cohen after store hours there were several depart- ment managers present; that she did not remember why she went back to the store that night; that she did not remember whether Cohen or another de- partment manager mentioned something about a union ; and that she remembered jokingly saying that she would get double time on her birthday. When shown a statement that she had previously given to a Board agent, Cockrum testified that it refreshed her memory and that Cohen told her he was expecting "Amalgamated Garments or Amal- gamated Union," and that Cockrum should in- troduce them to the girls and cooperate; she did not remember whether this conversation with Cohen occurred on Saturday morning or on Friday night." Kenneth E. Hines testified that he was employed as an optician18 by Dr. Arnold Stanley, licensee of the optical department; that on May 31 he had a conversation with Stanley in which Stanley told him that if he continued to advise employees of their rights, Crown would force him to let Hines go; that immediately prior to Stanley's warning he had seen Lesoff talking to Stanley. Hines further testified that Stanley told him that inasmuch as the op- tometry department would not be involved in any bargaining with a union , he could not understand why Hines would interest himself in other em- ployees; and that Stanely said an agreement had been made with the Amalgamated and it was com- ing in whether any of "these slobs" signed or not.19 Stanley testified that he did not have a conversa- tion with Hines on May 31; that he was in Las Vegas 2 or 3 days before May 30 and on May 31; that he did not have any conversation with Lesoff concerning Hines ; that the word "slobs" was not part of his vocabulary; that at one time Hines said the Union was coming in or was there and Stanley replied it had nothing to do with "us" because of "our" professional status; and that he had " Cockrum impressed the Trial Examiner as an extremely intelligent wit- ness who apparently made a slip when she referred to a Friday night meet- ing with Cohen at which the forthcoming campaign of Respondent Union was discussed She attempted to repair this faux pas by pleading poor memory and when confronted with her previous statement stated she wasn't sure whether the conversation occurred on Friday night or Satur- day night. While Cockrum is the only witness to testify to a meeting on Fnday night, I find that there was such a meeting on Fnday night in which the ground work was laid for Respondent Union's organizational drive on the following day It is manifest that under all the circumstances the whirl- wind organizational campaign resulting in a contract was well planned. 939 discharged Hines and was presently engaged in a dispute with Hines concerning a bonus check Hines claimed was due him. On cross-examination Stanley testified that the Tuesday previous to the hearing was the first time he had heard anything about the Union's organizational drive and that he thought professionals were excluded from unions.20 I find no violation of the Act with regard to Hines' testimony, although I note that Stanley ad- mitted to a discussion with Hines concerning the Union in which he informed him that the optometry department was not involved. Rachel Harrell, employed by Daylin in the Gardena store, testified that Harold Eno, her super- visor and the manager of the department, called her into the office in the presence of a representative of the Respondent Union; that Eno introduced her to the representative and told her the company was not against her joining the Union; and that it would be good for the employees because now there were no "job" breaks but with the Union there would be. She replied "no," the representative wrote "NO" on his card, and Harrell left the office. Later that day Chertok, Eno, and another union representa- tive came to her work area and each of them urged her and Irene Lohayza, a coworker who'was work- ing in the same area, to join the Union. Harrell still replied "no," saying she would like to think about it. The union representative persisted but met with no success. At that point Chertok and Eno left and the union representative left shortly thereafter. About 7 o'clock that evening , when Harrell was about to leave, she went over to Eno and asked him, "Why do they want to force this union on us?" Eno, according to Harrell's testimony, replied, "This thing is getting serious, and I would wish you would sign it before going home tonight." Thereu- pon Harrell signed the card and gave it to Lohayza to give to the union representative. Harrell recalled that while Chertok, Eno, and the union representa- tive were in her work area, Chertok had asked Lohayza why she would not join the Union. Lohayza had her back to Chertok at the time and did not turn around to face him or offer a reply, whereupon Chertok said that this was a half million dollar investment and, "You think I want to lose it?" Lohayza still did not turn around and Chertok said, "Look at me when you talk to me. Don't turn your back on me." Eno, called by the General Counsel, testified that on May 2721 he was called into Chertok's office and Accordingly, Chertok's testimony as recited above is far from convincing is A technician who grinds glasses, assembles them , and may make adjust- ments but does not examine eyes 18 It was stipulated that in a statement Hines had given to a Board agent on June 20 the word "slobs" did not appear S0 It was stipulated that the optometry department was excluded from the collective-bargaining arrangement by agreement with Stanley and that Stanley is not a member of the Crown Merchants Association 21 The transcript reads May 21, this is an obvious typographical error which is hereby corrected 940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD introduced to three or four representatives of Respondent Union. Chertok told him that they were there to talk with the employees about or- ganizing the store, that there was no objection to that from Eno's company and to assist the union representatives by letting the employees have time off to talk with the union representatives. Eno per- mitted one of the union representatives to use his office to interview the employees who were brought in one at a time by Eno and introduced. Later in the day after the union representative talked to two or three employees he reported to Eno that he was concerned because the employees were reluctant to sign and he asked Eno to remain during the inter- views. Eno consented. The employees continued to come into the office and two employees who had previously spoken to the union representative when Eno was not present were recalled. Eno and the union representative then talked to these em- ployees about the benefits of the Union. Eno re- membered telling Lohayza that she would have better security with the Union. Eno then testified in affirmation of Harrell's testimony concerning the interchange between Chertok and Lohayza, but added that Chertok became angry. Eno also ad- mitted that he asked Harrell if Lohayza was going to sign and that he may have checked with two other employees if they had signed cards, although he had no specific memory of having done so. Irene J. Lohayza testified that Eno was her super- visor in late May and that he called her into his of- fice and introduced a representative of Respondent Union to her saying that the company was not against the Union and asked her if she wanted to sign . She replied in the negative and the union representative wrote "no" on a card. About 20 minutes later Eno again called her into the office and said that it was a good union and the em- ployees would have job security . She again refused to sign and left. About an hour later Chertok, Eno, and a union representative came to where she was putting away stock and Chertok asked, while her back was turned, "Why wouldn't you sign , Irene?" She did not answer and Chertok repeated the question. Again Lohayza ignored the question and Chertok said, "God damn it , Irene , at least you could have the courtesy of answering me. Do you know who I am? I own Crown." At this point, ac- cording to Lohayza's testimony, Eno interrupted and said, "I think Irene is a little scared. Is that any way to talk to an employee?" Thereupon Chertok and Eno left. The union representative left a little later but told Harrell and Lohayza that they would like to have them turn in their cards by the end of the day. Jose Stern, manager of Unishops, the licensee operating the men's and boys' department, testified he was in Chertok's office when several representa- tives of Respondent Union were present and was told by Chertok to cooperate with the Union. Later he took a union representative into his department and introduced him to a female employee, telling her that the representative was from the Union and wanted to talk to her. Stern did not remain and did not overhear the conversation. Ruth Wahl, em- ployed by licensee Barbara Lynn at Gardena, testified that Supervisor Perkins told her sometime during the latter part of May that some people at the snack bar wanted to talk to her and that if she' wanted to go she could; that she was curious and went to the snack bar where she talked to Virginia Hoffman; and that Hoffman discussed the Union with her, asked her to sign a card, and she did sign one. Janet Farmer, an employee of licensee Barbara Lynn at Gardena, testified that sometime in May,20 while she was working outdoors at the outdoor sale, Supervisor Perkins told her that Marie Watkins'23 manager of the department, had called on the phone and said that she wanted all the girls to sign for the Union; that, a little later on the same day, Applebaum told her that Watkins wanted to talk to her on the phone about the Union; that she went in- side and called Watkins at her home and Watkins told her that she wanted her to sign for the Union; and that Farmer said okay and hung up. After this conversation Applebaum again spoke to her while she was working outdoors. Applebaum wanted to know what Watkins had said. Farmer replied that Watkins had told her that she wanted her to sign for the Union but that she, Farmer, didn't want to because she wished to make up her own mind. Ap- plebaum then told Farmer "the good things about the union" and she told him that she would not sign . Applebaum, during this conversation or a later one (she testified that Applebaum spoke to her several times), said that the Union was coming in whether "we wanted it to not." Farmer further testified that after her conversa- tion with Applebaum, Perkins came out and told her that Watkins wanted her on the telephone. She went inside and Watkins told Farmer that they had called her from the back office because Farmer would not sign. Farmer informed Watkins that she had refused to sign and Watkins asked "why?" Farmer replied that her sister had advised her that the "Retail Union" was better. Watkins then told Farmer that her sister didn't know what she was talking about and that Farmer should sign because Farmer was going to have some surgery and signing would help keep her job; that if Farmer did not sign she would lose her job. Farmer again said okay and went outdoors, back to her job. Once again Ap- plebaum approached her and asked her if she were going to sign. Again Farmer refused and Ap- plebaum at that time told her that the Union was n The evidence shows the date to be May 30 " Watkins' son was married to Farmer's sister and Watkins had been in- strumental in hiring Farmer CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES 941 coming in whether anyone wanted it or not. Later that evening Lesoff brought a union representative to talk to Farmer. She was ringing up a sale on the cash register when the union representative laid a card in front of her and said that he wanted her to sign . She asked if she would lose her job and the representative said that if she did not sign she would lose her job. On cross-examination Farmer testified that about 3 days prior to the day she signed the union. authorization card Watkins had spoken to her and told her that the Respondent Union would soon make an attempt to organize the employees and that Watkins did not want the Union to come in. Farmer further testified that Watkins subsequently changed her advice because the downtown office had called her and told her they wanted all the girls in the department to sign for Respondent Union; and that she became upset because of the threats to her job and told other employees about the threats. Rodney Gustafson, manager of the Crown Au- tomotive Department, testified that Howard Cohen, manager of Crown Department Stores in Goleta, in- formed him, sometime at the end of May,24 that union representatives would be in the store and that Gustafson should permit them to talk to his em- ployees. During the course of the day Gustafson learned that they were representatives of Respon- dent Union. Irene A. Grimes, bookkeeper of licensee Daylin Incorporated at the Goleta store, testified that on Saturday, May 27, at Cohen's request, she gave him a list of the employees in her department together with their addresses and telephone numbers; and that she had a long conversation with a representa- tive of Respondent Union while at work on that day. and signed a union authorization card. Gertrude M. Jones, a Daylin employee at the Goleta store, testified that on Monday25 Cohen handed her a union authorization card and asked her to give it to Bill Martin, the warehouseman. She gave the card to Martin and told him that Cohen had instructed her to give it to him for his signa- ture. Martin took the card and stated he did not wish to sign it . However, he did sign it and returned it to Jones the next day. Jones, in turn, handed the signed card to Cohen. Diane Pierce, a sales employee of Barbara Lynn at the Goleta store, had not worked on Saturday, May 27. She testified that when she came to work on Monday, May 29, her supervisor, Cockrum, gave her a card and told her that some union men had been in and they wanted her to sign the card. Pierce asked if her job would be in jeopardy if she did not sign and Cockrum replied that she didn't know but 99 percent of the people had already signed and if she did not sign she might as well quit. Linda Kendel, an employee of Barbara Lynn at the Goleta store, testified that her immediate super- visor, Cockrum, introduced her to a representative of the Union who talked to her in Cockrum's presence and that she signed a union authorization card in Cockrum's presence. Janice Olson, an employee of Barbara Lynn at the Goleta store, testified that Cockrum was her immediate supervisor and introduced her to a representative of Respondent Union. Olson after talking with the union representative signed a card. Cockrum was not present while Olson talked with the union representative or when Olson signed the card. Bernadette Graibill, an employee of Barbara Lynn at the Goleta store, testified that on May 27 her supervisor, Cockrum, introduced her to a representative of Respondent Union saying that he was in the store with Cohen's permission. After leaving Graibill to talk to the representative, Cockrum returned when Graibill was filling out and signing the union card. Respondent Union rested at the conclusion of the General Counsel's case without calling any wit- nesses Perkins, when recalled by Respondent Crown, testified that on May 27 she told the employees under her supervision that there were some union representatives at the snack bar and they could go there and talk to them if they wished; that she called her supervisor, Watkins, at Watkins' home to discuss some business matters with her; that during this conversation Watkins told her "Use your own judgment" with reference to whether she should urge the employees to sign union cards; that she had discussions with some of the employees about the Union but did not advise them to sign the union cards;26 and that she, herself, signed a union card later in the day. Watkins testified that she was sick on May 30 and was home with the "flu"; that she received a call from Perkins telling her union representatives were in the store and she replied the employees could use their own judgment, that she received a phone call from Applebaum saying Farmer was upset and crying and unable to operate the register; and that she was called because she was Farmer's relative and to see if she could settle Farmer down. Watkins thereafter called the store, Perkins an- swered, and Watkins asked Perkins -to relieve Farmer at the register and to have Farmer call her at her home. Farmer called and Watkins related her telephone conversation with Farmer as follows: And Janet did call me back. And I says, "Janet, what's the matter?" And she says, "The union people," and she says, "everybody's telling me `Do this' and `Do that', and `Do this' and `Do that"', and she says, "I'm all befuttered." 1 fix the date as May 27 " I do not credit Perkins where her testimony is in conflict with Far- 1 fix the date as May 29 mer's 942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I says, "Calm yourself. Use your own judgment." I says to her, "It doesn't mean life or death." And she says, "They are trying to tell me that if I don't sign, you will fire me." And I says, "Nobody will fire you." Q. When you said during the conversation- that is, Janet, that they say "you will fire me", did she make any reference to any particular individual? A. No. Q. She just used the general "they"? A. That's right. Q. Did you during the course of any conver- sation tell her that she should sign the card? A. I said to her, "Well, if all the other 10 girls is going to sign the card in the depart- ment, why be the black sheep? You might as well join the crowds."27 Q. And what did she say? A. She says, "Well, we'll see." And by that time she hung up. C. Conclusions re Majority Status of Respondent Union It is true that the Board and the courts have recognized that not every accommodation afforded by an employer to a union violates the Act. How- ever, where an employer provides active support and identification with a union's organizational campaign , its illegal assistance and support con- stitute the effective cause in the attainment of majority status by the Union. Consistently the Board has held such illegal assistance and support to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act as they restrain and interfere with the rights of employees to freely select representatives of their own choosing. It is clear therefore that each em- ployee, who signs a union authorization card under circumstances where an employer has afforded a union illegal assistance and support, has been coerced. The crucial evidence as summarized above de- picts a situation where an employer has substituted his own judgment and preference of a collective- bargaining representative for that of the employees. I view as incomprehensible Chertok's agreements on May 27, renewed on May 30, to permit representatives of Respondent Union to solicit dur- ing working hours during a weekend which was an- ticipated to be extremely busy because of the out- door sales being conducted at both the Goleta and Gardena stores.28 The evidence discloses that even though Chertok laid down certain conditions to ,minimize interference with business and the or- " Respondent argues that in giving this advice Watkins was acting in the role of a relative of Farmer I do not view it in this light inasmuch as the call was made during business hours and during the time Farmer was under severe pressure from other supervisors :" This agreement under the circumstances, together with all the aspects of the organizational campaign , the hasty recognition, and the speed by ganizers assented to these conditions, they were honored more in the breach than in their ob- servance. Chertok, Cohen, Applebaum, Eno, Wat- kins, Cockrum, Perkins, and other supervisors re- peatedly called employees away from their work, permitted organizers to talk to employees while they were busy with customers, and each of them personally and at times in the company of or- ganizers approached employees while they were working to induce them to sign union authorization cards.29 Indeed, on several occasions employees were told by supervisors and organizers that unless they signed the union cards their jobs were in jeopardy. I view all of the incidents described in B, above, to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. Moreover, as I have indicated above, I am con- vinced that Chertok's agreement with Respondent Union's representatives encompassed a promise to intercede with employees and assist Respondent Union in its organizing efforts. Only on this basis can Respondent Union's claim of majority status on May 29 be explained. It is admitted that on May 29 Respondent Union made a claim of majority status and arranged with Chertok to substantiate its claim by a cardcheck on May 3 1. Nevertheless, on May 30, representatives of Respondent Union intensified their organiza- tional drive. It was on this date, May 30, that Farmer was subjected to severe and continual pres- sure to sign a union authorization card by her su- pervisors and Applebaum. Obviously drastic mea- sures were necessary on May 30 in order to make certain that a majority be demonstrated on May 31. The Lohayza incident, described above, graphi- cally demonstrates Chertok's personal interest in the success of the organizational drive. While Lohayza may have aroused Chertok's anger by fail- ing to accord him the respect he felt was due him, nevertheless, his demand that Lohayza explain why she would not sign the union card exceeded the bounds of permissive employer conduct and con- stituted interference and restraint of her rights under Section 7 of the Act as well as illegal assistance and support to Respondent Union. Eno, by making available his office to an or- ganizer, by sending employees in to talk to the or- ganizer, by his subsequent assistance to the or- ganizer in the inducement of employees to sign union authorization cards, and by his participation with Chertok in the Lohayza incident, violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. I find Farmer a highly credible witness and ac- cept her version of the various talks she had with Applebaum, Perkins, and Watkins. I find each of the incidents involving Farmer, as recited above, which a collective-bargaining agreement was concluded , warrants a con- clusion that the parties viewed time as of the essence The precise reason for this view is not revealed by the record. "Dixie Bedding Manufacturing Company, 121 NLRB 189, 195-196, where similar acts were held violative of the Act CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(2), and violated 8(a)(3) where discharge was threatened. Cohen's enlistment of Jones to secure Martin's signature to a union card is another instance of un- lawful assistance and support of Respondent Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 2).30 I credit Pierce's testimony that her supervisor, Cockrum, told her that she might as well quit if she did not sign the union authorization card. This incident constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3). Cockrum's presence when Kindel and Graibill signed union authorization cards and Cockrum's presence while the union organizer talked to Ken- del, likewise constituted illegal assistance and sup- port in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2).31 It was acknowledged that supervisors, managers of departments, and various executives of Respondent Crown introduced employees to organizers during worktime. Such assistance and support I find to constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. The above recital of findings inevitably leads to the conclusion that Respondent Union did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees in the Gardena and Goleta stores on May 31 or at any time subsequent thereto. Accordingly the recognition accorded Respondent Union by Respondent Crown on May 31 constitutes unlawful support and assistance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2).32 D. Findings re 8(a)(3), 8(b)(l)(A), and 8(b)(2) Violations At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case, Respondent Union rested without proffering any testimony. As I fully credit the record testimony of the General Counsel 's witnesses who testified that representatives of Respondent Union threatened them with loss of jobs if they did not sign union authorization cards, this testimony stands uncon- tradicted. Despite the failure to specifically identify the particular representatives engaging in such con- duct, Respondent Union may be held accountable for the threats. Accordingly, I find, by reason of the foregoing threats by its agents that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. It was stipulated that Respondent Union had two dinner meetings for Crown employees; one at Gardena on June 8 and another at Goleta on June 9. I fully credit Jones ' testimony The evidence shows that Cockrum personally received signed union authorization cards and turned them over to Respondent Union 's represen- tatives. Cockrum admitted she "may " have done so ' Topps Kerrmill, Inc , 143 NLRB 694 Although the instant case bears many similarities to the Topps Kerrmi l case cited above , the cases are quite 943 Although several witnesses' testimony would seem to indicate that the speeches made by representatives of Respondent Union at these din- ners unduly emphasized that unless Crown em- ployees joined the Union they would be discharged, I do not find that to be the fact. Rather, I find that these meetings were called to afford Crown em- ployees an opportunity to become acquainted with the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement in- cluding the union-shop provisions. I find no inde- pendent violations by virtue of these meetings. In view of my finding, above, that on June 1 and thereafter Respondent Union did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees in the Goleta and Gardena stores, I find that the execution of the agreement containing a provision for a union-shop clause and checkoff on June 1 and the maintenance of the agreement thereafter constituted violations by Respondent Union of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) and that Respondent Crown, thereby, was in violation of Section 8(a)(I ), (2), and (3) of the Act.33 Even though the union-security and checkoff provisions were not enforced, which I find to be true, the violations are established. As these provi- sions, union security and checkoff, were at no time deleted from the agreement, the failure to enforce them can only operate to affect the remedy but cannot excuse the violations. E. Concluding Findings Throughout the hearing counsel for Respondent Union voiced objections to the consideration of evidence against Respondent Union dealing with conversations between management representatives and Crown employees outside the presence of Respondent Union's representatives: I overruled these objections . I adhere to this ruling . I cannot ignore what is so fully spread upon the record with regard to the mutual efforts and aims of Respon- dents. I reiterate my conviction that there was an understanding between the Respondents that resulted in a cooperative effort to organize Crown's employees regardless of the employees' desires. Moreover, the widespread assistance , support, and interference by Crown's supervisory and managerial personnel warrants the conclusions and findings, made above, that the majority status of Respondent Union was achieved by illegal means. This result obtains even if the protested evidence were not to be considered with regard to the allega- tions against the Respondent Union. distinguishable The conduct in the instant case is much more aggravated both in quantity and quality Moreover, the theory of the Topps Kerrmill case was grounded on the disparate treatment of a rival union In the in- stant case the unlawful coercion of employees, unlawful interrogation, un- lawful assistance, and unlawful support constitute the violations found ' Accurate Forming Corporation, 128 NLRB 653 944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case , I make the following: 11. Allegations against Respondent Crown and Respondent Union not found herein to constitute violations of the Act are hereby dismissed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Crown is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. 2. Respondent Union , Retail Clerks Union, Local 899 , and Retail Clerks Union , Local 905, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By recognizing and entering into a contract with Respondent Union on June 1, 1967, Respon- dent Crown has interfered with , restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby assisted Respondent Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 2) of the Act. 4. By the conduct of its supervisory and managerial employees described herein , Respon- dent Crown has unlawfully coerced , interrogated, assisted , and supported Respondent Union in the organization of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2). 5. By telling its employees that , to keep their jobs, they were required to sign authorization cards in behalf of Respondent Union , Respondent Crown has discriminated in regard to hire or tenure of em- ployment to encourage membership in Respondent Union and has thereby engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3). 6. By entering into the agreement with Respon- dent Union on June 1 , 1967, and thereafter main- taining a collective-bargaining agreement contain- ing a provision for a union shop and checkoff when Respondent Union did not at any time represent an uncoerced majority , Respondent Crown violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act. 7. Respondent Union, by threatening Crown em- ployees with discharge if they failed to sign union authorization cards, violated Section 8 (b)(1)(A) and (2 ) of the Act. 8. Respondent Union , by virtue of its entering into a collective-bargaining agreement with Crown on June 1, 1967, at a time when it did not represent an uncoerced majority , violated Section 8(b)(1 )(A) and (2) of the Act. 9. By entering into and maintaining the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement containing a provi- sion for a union shop and checkoff, Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and ( 2) of the Act. 10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are un- fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with their operations described in section II, above, have a close , intimate , and substantial relationship to trade , traffic , and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent Crown and Respondent Union have engaged in and- are con- tinuing to engage in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that each of them be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As the collective -bargaining agreement of June 1, 1967, has been found to have been entered into and subsequently maintained under the conditions described above and at a time when Respondent Union did not represent the free choice of a majori- ty of the employees in the unit or units included in the agreement, it will be recommended that said Respondents be required to set aside said agree- ment and cease giving effect to it or any supple- ment , extension , or renewal thereof.34 It will be further recommended that Respondent Crown be required to withdraw and withhold recognition of Respondent Union unless and until such time as Respondent Union is certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of Crown em- ployees in an appropriate unit. As the evidence shows that dues and initiation fees were not paid and checkoff provisions of the agreement were not enforced , a reimbursement order will not be included. The unfair labor practices found to have engaged in by Respondents are of such a character and scope that they strike at one of the basic purposes the Act was designed to achieve ; i.e., to provide employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining a free and untrammeled choice of their bargaining representative. It will therefore be recommended that Respondents cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in their guaranteed rights. 14 Nothing herein shall be construed to require Respondent Crown to vary wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive features of its employees' working conditions which are currently in effect CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES 945 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that: A. Respondent Crown, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Assisting and contributing support to Respondent Union as the representative of any of its employees at its stores located in Goleta and/or Gardena, California, for the purpose of dealing with it concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment, or other conditions of employment. (b) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement entered into on or about June 1, 1967, or to any extensions, renewal, or modification thereof, or any other contract or agreement with such labor organization which may now be in ef- fect, covering Respondent Crown's employees at its stores located in Gardena and/or Goleta, Califor- nia.35 (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization including Retail Clerks Union Locals 899 and 905, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur- poses of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such ac- tivities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act:. (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Respondent Union as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of its employees at the Goleta and/or Gardena, California, stores unless and until such labor organization shall have been certified by the Board as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of such employees. (b) Post at its premises in Gardena, California, and Goleta, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."36 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respon- dent Crown's representative, shall be posted by Respondent Crown 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 the Respondent Crown to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Post at the same place and under the same conditions as set forth in (b), above, as soon as pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 3 1, co- pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.37 B. Respondent Union, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Giving effect to the collective- bargaining agreement entered into on or about June 1, 1967, with Respondent Crown, or any extension, renewal, or modification thereoof. (b) Acting as the exclusive collective-bargainng representative of Respondent Crown's employees at the Gardena and/or Goleta, California, stores for the purpose of dealing with said Respondent Crown concerning wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until it shall be certified by the Board as the ex- clusive collective-bargaining representative of such employees. (c) In any other manner restraining or coercing Crown's employees at the Gardena and/or Goleta, California, stores in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor or- ganization as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is found necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its office and meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."38 Co- pies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent Union's representative, shall be posted by Respondent Union immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, in- - " Nothing herein shall be construed to require Respondent Crown to vary wages, hours, seniority , or other substantive features of its employees' working conditions which are currently in effect 36 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 Ap- peals 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 said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent Crown has taken to comply herewith " m 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 Ap- peals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" 354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 1 - 61 946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cluding all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 31 signed copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- pendix B" for posting by Respondent Crown as pro- vided herein. (c) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as (b), immediately above, as soon as they are provided by the Regional Director, copies of the notice attached marked "Appendix A." (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.39 " In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent Union has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT assist or support Southern California Joint Board , Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of your job, question you concerning your union sym- pathies or desires , or coerce you in any other manner in order to induce you to sign cards authorizing the above -named labor organiza- tion to represent you. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you in order to compel you to become or remain members of the above-named labor organiza- tion. WE WILL no longer give effect to the agree- ment we signed on June 1 , 1967, with the above-named labor organization or to any ex- tension , renewal , or modification of that agree- ment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of your rights to organize yourselves , to form, join, or assist Local 899 and Local 905, of Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization that you may choose as your representative. WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from Southern California Joint Board, Amalga- mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, or any successor thereof unless and until it has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as your exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining at the Goleta and/or Gardena, California, stores. You are all free to engage in concerted activity for your mutual aid or protection, to become or remain members of a labor organization, or to refuse to engage in such activities, except to the ex- tent that such rights may be affected by a lawful agreement conforming to Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Dated By CROWN DISCOUNT DEPARTMENT STORES, ET AL. (Employer) (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive 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, 10th Floor, Bartlett Building, 215 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 688-5850. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JOINT BOARD , AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL-CIO Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of your job if you refuse to help this union or refuse to sign a card authorizing this Union to represent you. WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective- bargaining agreement entered into on or about June 1, 1967, with Crown Discount Depart- ment Stores, covering the stores at Goleta and Gardena, California, or to any extension, renewal, or modification thereof. WE WILL NOT act as your exclusive bargain- ing representative at the Goleta and Gardena, California, stores unless and until we have been certified by the Board as such representa- tive. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce you in the rights guaranteed to you CROWN DISCOUNT DEPT. STORES by Section 7 of the Act to freely choose a bar- gaining representative , to become or remain a member of this labor organization or any other labor organization , or to refuse to do any of these things except to the extent that such rights may be affected by a lawful agreement conforming to the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JOINT BOARD, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) 947 This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 10th Floor, Bartlett Building , 215 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 688-5850.