W. T. Grant Co.

W. T. GRANT COMPANY W. T. Grant Company and Retail Clerks Union, Local 1288, Retail Clerks International Associa- tion, AFL-CIO. Case 20-CA-7142 July 26, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On April 13, 1972, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party and the General Counsel filed a brief in answer to the Respondent's exceptions and supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as' amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, W. T. Grant Company, Clovis, California, its officers, agents, successors , and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES T. BARKER, Trial Examiner: This matter was heard at Fresno, California, on March 1, 1972, pursuant to a charge filed on November 24, 1971,1 by Retail Clerks Union, Local 1288, Retail Clerks International Associa- tion, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union. On January 10, 1972, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for Region 20 issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. On March 29, the parties timely filed briefs with me. 437 Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties , and upon the entire record in this case, and my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT At all times material herein, W. T. Grant Company has been a Delaware corporation with a place of business in Clovis, California, where it has been engaged in the sale at retail of general merchandise. During the calendar year immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, received gross revenues in excess of $500,000. Similarly, during the same period of time, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, purchased and received, at its operations in the State of California, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources located outside the State of California. Upon these admitted facts, I find that Respondent has been at all times material an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent admits, and I find , that at all times material herein Retail Clerks Union , Local 1288, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The issues in this case relate solely to whether, as alleged in the complaint, Respondent's agent, Thomas O'Hara, threatened employees with store closure in the event the employees continued to engage in union activities and whether, because of Golda Becker's union or other concerted activities, Respondent discriminatorily refused to reinstate Becker following the expiration of her authorized and bona fide leave of absence. The Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor practices and asserts that the record fails to support the allegations of the complaint. Additionally, the Respon- dent contends that the management agent who made the decision with respect to the reinstatement of Becker had no knowledge of Becker's prior union or concerted activity and that his decision not to reinstate Becker was based solely upon a legitimate business judgment. In this latter regard, the Respondent contends that when Becker sought reinstatement there were no vacancies in her former job category; and that it was O'Hara's policy as store manager not to assign or employ former section merchandisers in lower ranking salesclerk jobs. i Unless otherwise specified all dates refer to the calendar year 1971 198 NLRB No. 80 438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Pertinent Facts 1. Background facts a. The Clovis operation At material times, the Clovis, California, store of Respondent was under the management of Thomas O'Hara. O'Hara assumed managership of the Clovis store on July 15. He succeeded William Inman as store manager. O'Hara was assisted by an assistant manager, Gene Lee, an office manager, and five section merchandisers. Addition- ally, employed in the store during its day and evening operations were approximately 25 or 30 sales employees and employees in the "extra" category. Approximately 12 were full-time employees and most of the remaining number were regular part-time employees. b. Becker's employment Golda Becker was initially employed by Respondent on December 1, 1968. She held stockroom and sales jobs of increasing responsibility and wage level until, in approxi- mately July 1969, she became a department manager. Thereafter, in March 1971, she was made a section merchandiser. Becker commenced her employment at the rate of $1.65 per hour. As a department manager she received raises to a maximum of $1.775 per hour which hourly rate was raised to $1.90 per hour when she was designated a section merchandiser. Her duties as section merchandiser did not vary from those as department manager.2 As department manager and/or section merchandiser Becker was in charge of three separate departments, including the yard goods department. The latter depart- ment was not a self-service department and, consequently, approximately 50 percent of her normal 25-hour workweek was spent in waiting on customers. The balance of her worktime was spent in checking and ordering merchandise, straightening the sales counters, and manning the cash register. At no time did Becker have employees working under her direction. c. The union organizational efforts In December 1970, Becker attended a meeting at a restaurant where Messrs. Ogle and Kissling, representa- tives of the Union, met with employees of the Company. Approximately 20 or 25 employees of the Company's Clovis and Fresno stores were in attendance. Thereafter, on December 24, Becker signed a union authorization card presented to her by employee Olita Cope who inquired if Becker were interested in "having a union come in." Thereafter, nearly 2 weeks later, Becker attended a second union meeting. Approximately the same number of employees attended. In attendance at this meeting was Nora Parmer, a payroll clerk.3 No representatives of supervision or management at- tended either of the union meetings. A representation election was conducted on March 5.4 In the interim period Becker participated with other employ- ees in conversations concerning the Union. These conver- sations transpired in the employee lounge on store premises during breaks, and on the work floor during lulls in the business day. Moreover, Becker met for coffee with union representative Ogle but at no time did Becker observe Inman present. Becker testified that she made no effort to cloak her union activity. d. Becker and Inman converse In the month of January, the then incumbent store manager, William Inman, spoke with Becker and asked her why the employees wanted a union. Inman additionally inquired if Becker did not think that the Company was treating the employees right. Becker responded that she thought that she was treated well "except in the matter of wages." In this latter regard she observed that two employees who were employed after her were "making more money." The conversation was interrupted and thus ended. e. Becker and Lee converse In the latter part of February, Becker and employees Loeta Hefley and Vivian Welchel conversed with Gene Lee, the assistant store manager.5 In conversing with the employees, Lee stated that the Union could not offer them any more than the Company did. Becker inquired as to what benefits the Company actually offered, and Lee responded that, with over 1,100 stores, the Company "would close down one or two before they would go union." Becker responded that she thought it would be "ridiculous" to close down "a paying store." f. Becker granted leave of absence Commencing in December 1970 and continuing periodi- cally until May 1971, Becker spoke intermittently with William Inman concerning the ultimate need for her to take a leave of absence in light of her husband's terminal illness. On the first occasion Inman informed Becker that he was "quite sure" that the leave would be granted and that Becker could take up to 6 months' leave and be permitted to return to her employment. On May 20, Becker completed a written leave-of-absence application. She specified the leave period as commencing on May 20 and concluding on November 20. She applied under the provision of Respondent's leave policy permit- ting a regular leave of absence to employees who had completed at least 1 year of continuous service. Becker designated "illness in family" as the reason for her leave. The application was given approval by William Inman on May 21, and the district manager and the store personnel division thereafter signified endorsement of Inman's recommendation. Approval by the personnel division of the application was signified by a signature dated June 3. On the reverse side of the application which was 2 It is stipulated that section merchandisers are not supervisors within 4 The election was held pursuant to a petition filed in Case 20-RC-9765 the meaning of the Act The Union lost the election 9 Parmer cast an unchallenged ballot in the representation election 5 It was stipulated that Gene Lee's name did not appear on the Excelsior which, as found below, was held on March 5 list submitted by the Company for purposes of the March 5 election W. T. GRANT COMPANY approved are set out seven conditions governing the grant of the leave of absence. In pertinent part these conditions are as follows: 1. The leave of absence plan enables full-time and part-time employees who have established a good record with the Company to maintain continuity of employment during necessary unpaid absence. Period of leave is deducted in computing length of service for Retirement Plan purposes. People on leave of absence are not eligible for vacation, bonus or similar privileges during leave. They are, however, eligible for employee's discount. 2. Leave of absence is approved for length of time stated on reverse side. If leave of absence is approved for less than six months, an extension may be applied for, making total absence not longer than six months. In exceptional cases an extension beyond six months may be applied for. 6. It is expected that full-time or part-time employ- ment will be available at termination of leave, but return to same position, hours of work, or salary cannot be assured. In no case can reemployment following leave of absence be guaranteed, (except only in case of employees drafted into the service of the United States Government, as provided by law) as it is not possible to anticipate conditions which may exist at the expiration of leave. When she applied to Inman for her leave of absence, Becker was told by Inman that he would have one of the part-time employees take care of Becker's department with the assistance of another employee until Becker was able to come back. 2. The alleged unlawful conduct a. Becker seeks employment In early September, accompanied by her daughter, Becker visited the Clovis store and spoke with O'Hara 6 Becker informed O'Hara that she wished to return to work. In conversing with O'Hara, Becker referred to the sections over which she had served as section merchandiser. O'Hara responded that he had no openings at the time and he asked if Becker would be willing to take a part-time job. Becker responded that she would take anything that "came up." Thereafter, O'Hara consulted his files relating to Becker's leave. He did not contact other company representatives concerning Becker's leave. A few days later Becker again spoke with O'Hara and 6 As found, during the period of Becker's absence Thomas O'Hara had succeeded William Inman as store manager r The foregoing is based upon a composite of the credited testimony of Golda Becker and Thomas O'Hara I rely principally on the testimony of Golda Becker However, I credit also the testimony of Thomas O'Hara which is consistent with that of Becker in salient aspects 8 The foregoing is based principally upon the credited testimony of Golda Becker and Shirley Canova I credit the testimony of Thomas O'Hara concerning this incident only to the extent it is consistent with the foregoing finding Specifically, I do not credit the testimony of O'Hara to the effect that he made no mention of union-related instructions from "New York" as the basis for his decision not to offer Becker employment Moreover, I do not credit O'Hara's denial that he made no reference to management's willingness to close stores before allowing a union to come in 439 informed him of her willingness to work on a part-time basis.7 Becker had worked less than 30 hours per week and considered herself a part-time employee. She designated hereself as such in filing her request for a leave of absence. O'Hara testified, without amplification, that Becker had been a full-time employee. b. The November 15 conversation On November 15, Golda Becker again visited the Clovis store. On this occasion she was accompanied by her eldest daughter, Shirley Canova. Becker spoke with O'Hara. Their conversation commenced in the front area of the store, near the checkout stand. At O'Hara's request, he and Becker moved near the jewelry counter where they carried on the substantive aspects of the conversation. As Becker and O'Hara left the checkstand to go to the vicinity of the jewelry department, Shirley Canova walked over to the fashion department where blouses were displayed. This area is approximately 30 feet from the area where Becker and O'Hara conversed. Carrying her infant son in her arms, Canova surveyed the blouse counter and walked back to the vicinity of the jewelry counter. She then stood back of O'Hara within a few feet of him. As the conversation ensued between Becker and O'Hara, Becker asked O'Hara why he had not "brought her back" to the store since he had hired other employees. He said that he had orders from "New York" not to bring her back because New York didn't want any more trouble with the Union. O'Hara said that he would deny that statement if it were attributed to him. Becker asked O'Hara what he thought the "Labor Board" would think of the matter and O'Hara asked why Becker didn't "go talk to them" about it. Becker stated that she thought she would do so and stated further that she thought she would also "go to the union." Again O'Hara asserted that Becker should do so. He also suggested that Becker should go to the unemploy- ment office because she "had it coming." During the course of the conversation, Becker averred that the Company had terminated another employee because of the Union. O'Hara stated that the Company would close "a couple of stores" before it would go union. Becker responded that the Clovis store was doing too well to close down. O'Hara stated that the store was losing sales and that there was going to be a cutback in the payroll. The conversation terminated and Becker and Canova left the store.8 Although the testimony of the three principals in the incident is at variance with respect to the precise juxtaposition of Canova to Becker and to O'Hara as Becker and O'Hara conversed, upon a careful evaluation of the testimony of Canova and of Becker , I find that Canova was in close proximity to Becker and O'Hara during virtually the entirety of their conversation I find also that she overheard their respective remarks, as she testified she did I find further that it is likely, as Canova testified, she stood in back of O'Hara I do not credit O'Hara's accounting of Canova's activities while she was in the store Initially, I am convinced that O'Hara was involved in discussions with Becker concerning her prospective job tenure and that his attentions were principally directed to that subject I am not convinced that during the course of his conversation with Becker he was as observant of Canova's movements throughout the store and other unrelated store activities as he testified he was In this regard , I note that his (Continued) 440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD c. The Company's defense (1) The knowledge issue Thomas O'Hara testified that on July 14, 1971, he was informed by his superiors that he was to assume manage- ment of the Clovis store. He reported to the Clovis store from the Concord, California, store on July 15. The incumbent manager was on vacation and no one of equal or higher managerial level was present to instruct him concerning his new managership. The following Sunday, July 18, William Inman, O'Hara's predecessor at the Clovis store, met with O'Hara for approximately 30 minutes. During this meeting matters such as inventory, stock on hand, merchandise orders, and future sales events were discussed. The meeting was necessarily brief because Inman had to report directly to his new managerial assignment. O'Hara denied that he was informed of the identity of the employees in the store who had supported the Union in its earlier organizational efforts. O'Hara testified that he knew only that a representation election had been held in March 1971 and that it had been a "close election." (2) The refusal to reinstate O'Hara further testified that he did not offer Becker employment in job categories which became vacant after September 1, when Becker indicated her availability for work, because no openings in the merchandise manager classificat on materialized; and because it was his personal policy as store manager never to reemploy former "section heads" or "bosses" injobs wherein they would be required to "work under" another employee. In this latter regard, O'Hara testified that, in his experience, employees who had served as "section heads" and had returned to work under the direction of another employee had become dissatisfied and friction resulted. He further testified that, based on his experience, to place a former section merchandiser in the lower paying job category of salesclerk would breed "discontent and sorrow." In substance, O'Hara testified that there were at times pertinent six section merchandisers. Becker was one of the section merchandisers at the time she took her leave of absence in May 1971. The lowest paid section merchandi- ser received $1.825 per hour as contrasted to $1.70 per hour for the highest paid employee in the sales and "other" personnel categories. As found, when Becker took her leave of absence she was compensated at $1.90 per hour. Stipulated evidence of record establishes that on Novem- ber 24, the Company hired a part-time salesclerk. Another part-time salesclerk was employed on December 14. Additionally, one extra salesclerk was hired on November 27, November 29, and December 14, respectively. In February 1972, Respondent also hired an employee in the observations of Canova and his memory of the incidents were not sufficiently accurate to recall that Canova, during her entire presence in the store, was carrying her infant son in her arms I am convinced that, while O'Hara accurately recounted some aspects of the incident, his account was not as reliable in its totality as the accounting which Becker and Canova, in combination, rendered. 9 The stipulation also reveals that in August, prior to Becker's September part-time sales category and one in the extra sales category.9 Conclusions Upon the foregoing evidence, I conclude and find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3), as alleged in the complaint. Initially, I find that on November 15, Golda Becker was an employee of Respondent within the meaning of the Act. On the day in question, Becker was on leave of absence from her employment in the Clovis store of Respondent. Under the terms and conditions of her leave of absence Becker had reasonable expectation of employment if, as in fact transpired, she applied to return to work within the 6- month term for which leave was granted. At the very least she was applicant for employment and, as such, was protected by the Act from employer interference, restraint, or coercion in her present or potential support of or affinity to a labor organization.io In the circumstances, I find violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Thomas O'Hara's threat during his conversation with Becker on November 15 to the effect that the Company would close down "a couple" of stores before it would go union. This threat of store closure, considered in conjunction with O'Hara's statement that the Clovis store was losing sales and that a cutback in the payroll would be effectuated, had the clear and foreseeable effect of interfering with and restraining Becker in her future support of the Union, as well as any prospective resort to collective representation through a representative of her choosing, and thus ran counter to Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Moreover, I find violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act Respondent's refusal for discriminatory reasons to permit Becker to return to work after she had applied to do so and had signified her desire to terminate her leave of absence by reactivating her employment in Respondent's Clovis store. I find no merit in Respondent's contention that O'Hara had no knowledge of Becker's past support of the Union when he terminated her. It is not essential here to determine the extent, if any, of O'Hara's personal aware- ness of Becker's union affinity. Rather, it suffices to find, as I do, that higher level of management in Respondent's hierarchy had this awareness and instructed O'Hara not to offer Becker further employment.ii This is the only permissible conclusion to be drawn from O'Hara's candid statement to Becker on November 15, when he gave the quietus to Becker's continuing quest for work. With the credibility issue determined adversely to O'Hara, conjec- ture over why O'Hara spoke so openly is without significance. What is significant is that he articulated these sentiments, and that he was the managing agent of Respondent with full authority to speak with respect to the I request to return to duty, two part-time salesclerks were hired 10 See N L R B v Tesoro Petroleum Corp, 431 F 2d 95 (C A 9), enfg. 174 NLRB 1285 11 The evidence leaves no doubt that during Inman's tenure as store manager Becker's interest in the Union had been sufficiently open to have come to the attention of management W. T. GRANT COMPANY hire ank retention of personnel at the Clovis store. His statement is, of course, attributable to Respondent and binding upon it. The cllear manifestation of antiunion, discriminatory motive with respect to the refusal of Respondent to offer Becker employment is augmented by, although not necessarily dependent for validity upon, the evidence revealing O'Hara's refusal to hire Becker in a capacity other than section merchandiser. Becker had, it is clear, stated her desire to obtain immediate employment in any capacity: Her quest was not limited to the section merchandiser position. Becker made this clear enough to O'Hara in her early September conversation, and, thereaft- er, in the two conversations that succeeded it, she had stated her willingness and desire to obtain employment in a lesser classification. By his response and inquiry O'Hara revealed his understanding of Becker's willingness to accept any part-time job. That vacancies periodically and recurringly developed for which Becker was qualified is not disputed. O'Hara's defense, upon policy grounds, is not convincing in light of his failure to candidly inform Becker in September, after he learned that Becker had been a section merchandiser, that she would be considered for and permitted to return to work only in the job classification she had occupied at the time she commenced her leave of absence. In view of these considerations, and the entire record, I find Respondent's defense unconvincing. I find, rather, that Respondent acted upon discriminatory motiva- tion in refusing to give Becker employment. On this record, it is not a compelling consideration that Becker was not a leading union activist but merely a supporter of the Union. The evidence warrants the conclusion that Respondent opposed the Union. Accord- ingly, it is reasonable to conclude, as I do, that when offered an opportunity to screen from its employment rolls a union supporter it did so by instructing O'Hara not to rehire Becker. O'Hara's candid confessional was not anticipated. In the circumstances, I conclude, and find, that in failing and refusing to employ Golda Becker following her application to return to gainful employment in Respon- dent's Clovis store, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation 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 the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the 12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 441 Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent unlawfully refused employment to employee Golda Becker at the termination of her authorized leave of absence in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, I shall order that Respondent offer Golda Becker immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position of employ- ment without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her. Backpay shall be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with interest in accordance with the policy of the Board as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. W. T. Grant Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Retail Clerks Union, Local 1288, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Golda Becker was, and has been at all times material herein, an employee within the meaning of the Act. 4. By informing Golda Becker that the Company would close stores to discourage employee resort to a labor organization to represent them , Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By refusing to employ Golda Becker at the expira- tion of her authorized leave of absence , Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 12 ORDER Respondent, W. T. Grant Company, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Retail Clerks Union, Local 1288, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employ- ees by refusing to employ employees because of their union membership, or in any like or related manner discriminat- ing against any of its employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. (b) Informing employees that the Company would close stores in order to discourage the employees' resort to union representation. 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Golda Becker immediate employment at the Clovis, California, store of Respondent in her former or substantially equivalent position, or, if no vacancy exists, in a position for which she is qualified by reason of her past employment by Respondent. Said latter position of employment shall be as nearly equivalent to her last position of employment at the Clovis, California, store as operating conditions, viewed in context of the nondiscnmi- natory business judgment of management, will permit. (b) Make whole Golda Becker for any loss of wages which she may have suffered by reason of the discnmina- tion against her, in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Clovis, California, place of business copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.14 IJ In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 14 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT, except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, refuse to employ Golda Becker, or any other employee, at the termination of his or her authorized leave of absence, because of membership in or activity on behalf of Retail Clerks Union, Local 1288, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT inform employees that our manage- ment will close stores in order to discourage employee resort to union representation. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to Golda Becker to her former or substantially equivalent position of employment without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges. WE WILL make whole Golda Becker for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against her, together with interest on the pay she may have lost by reason of our failure to employ her. W. T. GRANT COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13018 Federal Building, Box 36047, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-0335.