W. T. Grant Co.

244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD W. T. Grant Company and International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 110. Case 6-CA-6748 February 25, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On October 10, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Walter H. Maloney, Jr., issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order and notice except as modified below.' ORDER Pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent, W. T. Grant Company, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order as herein modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b): "(b) Evicting and denying regular store service to union organizers who are properly in Respondent's stores and not engaged in improper union activities." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a): "(a) Offer to Albert A. Romanow full and immediate reinstatement to his former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority or other rights previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay, including loss of commissions, suffered by him by reason of the discrimination found, in the manner described above in the section entitled `Remedy.' " 3. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis- trative Law Judge's notice. i We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(I) of the Act by evicting Union Organizer Gail Nathanic from its store and revoking her shopping privileges therein However, as this conduct was limited to a union official, there is no warrant for extending the 8(a)(I) remedy to employees Although we also agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Respondent threatened to arrest Nathanic and engaged in surveillance of her telephone call, the record does not reveal that any employees witnessed these acts In the absence of such evidence, we disavow the Administrative Law Judge 's 8(a)(1) findings which pertain to said conduct In view of the foregoing , we shall modify the recommended Order and notice accordingly APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found that we violated Federal law, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL offer to Albert A. Romanow full and immediate reinstatement to his former position or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, and we will pay him any backpay, including commissions, which he would have earned, together with interest thereon, had he not been discharged. WE WILL notify Mrs. Gail Nathanic, in writing, that she may shop in store 789 or in any other Grant store. WE WILL NOT evict or deny shopping privileges to any union organizer who is properly in any of our stores and not engaged in improper union activities. All our employees are free to become or remain members of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 110, or any other labor organiza- tion. 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 compli- ance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1536 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, Telephone 412-644-2977. 209 NLRB No. 47 W T. GRANT CO. 245 DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT WALTER H. MALONEY, JR., Administrative Law Judge: This case came on for heanng before me upon a complaint,' issued by the Regional Director of Region 6, of the Board , alleging that W T. Grant Company, the Respondent herem,z violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by unlawfully evicting union organizer, Gail Nathanic, from its store in the presence of employees and by discnminatorily discharging Albert A. Romanow Respon- dent asserts that it was privileged to evict Mrs. Nathanic at the time and place alleged, and that Romanow was not discharged but voluntarily quit his employment. Upon these contentions , the issues herein were joined 3 A. The Events in Question In April 1973, the Union began an organizing campaign among the approximately 120 selling and clerical employ- ees employed by the Respondent at its Johnstown, Pennsylvania, store. The department store in question (Store 789) is actually part of a shopping center located on Eisenhower Boulevard in Richmond Township, a near suburb of Johnstown. The immediate supervision of the campaign was entrusted to Mrs. Gail Nathanic, who is secretary of Local 110. On April 25, 1973, the Union filed a representation petition in a unit composed of all regular full-time and part-time selling and nonselling employees, including office clerical employees, drivers, and warehouse employees (Case 6-RC-6468). After a heanng conducted by the Regional Office on May 17, 1973, the Regional Director of Region 6 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in that approximate unit. An election was conducted on July 12, 1973, resulting in 31 votes for Local 110, 2 votes for the Retail Clerks, and 55 votes against any union. These results were certified by the Regional Director on July 30, 1973. One of the Union's concerns was that store employees be made aware early in the campaign of certain rights guaranteed to them by the Act. These rights are detailed in a large, three-colored notice of election prepared by the Board and mailed to employers for posting. The initial notice of necessity omits any details of an election but is routinely mailed to employers by the Regional Office with a copy of the representation petition, and with a request that the specimen notice be posted for general information- al purposes. At this point, posting of such a notice is wholly voluntary on the part of the employer. Later, after the details of the election are worked out, a formal notice of election, containing both the recitation of employee rights and specific information relating to the time and place of I The principal entries of formal papers herein are as follows Charge filed on May 31, 1973, by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 110 (herein called Union or Local 110), complaint issued on July 31, 1973, Respondent's answer filed on August 8, 1973 , hearing held in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, on August 29, 1973, briefs were filed by General Counsel on October 1, 1973, and by Respondent on October 3, 1973 2 The complaint alleges, and the Respondent admits, that the W T Grant Company (herein called Respondent or Grant) is a Delaware corporation which maintains its principal office in New York, New York, the election, are forwarded to the employer and must be posted. It was the first, or general, information notice, that Mrs. Nathanic was concerned about early in May. She had contacted some of her in-house organizers as to whether the Respondent had posted the notice of employee rights which had been mailed to it late in April along with the petition in Case 6-RC-6468. She received a negative reply. On May 4, 1973, she went to the store to ask the manager to post the Board notice. When she entered the store, she went to the cashier's desk, identified herself to Mrs Toni Swank, an employee of the Respondent, and asked to speak with the Store Manager Jack Gearhart. Mrs. Swank reported Mrs. Nathanic's presence by phone to the main office, and shortly thereafter three men approached her She asked one of them if he was Mr. Gearhart The man replied that he was Operations Manager Abbott Loy and that ' he was speaking on Gearhart's behalf. Mrs. Nathanic told Loy that she had come to the store to see if Grant had posted the NLRB notice. Loy replied that Grant had not done so and would not do so at that time. When Mrs. Nathanic asked why not, Loy replied that the store did not care to post it. As she began walking down an aisle, Loy blocked her path and told her to leave. Mrs. Nathanic said that she would like to shop. When Loy replied that they would like her to leave, Mrs. Nathanic insisted to him that the store was a public place. Loy then stated ". . . we are revoking your shopping privileges." Mrs. Nathanic asked why, and Loy replied: "On the grounds that your face might incite a riot." Mrs. Nathanic answered in irritation, "I've been told a lot of things in my life, sir, but never that my face might start a not." Loy replied that the store did not want her to shop and that it had the right to have her removed. Mrs. Nathanic left, followed by Loy and others who had joined the group. Outside the entrance to the store, she went to a pay phone located in a public mall or lobby, to which she had been directed by Loy when she sought permission to use a store phone. She called Francis R. Engbert, the president of Local 110, to report that she was not allowed to shop. Dunng her phone call, Loy stood within a few feet of her and started cleaning some ash trays. She asked Loy in the course of her phone conversation if she could "do anything for him," and Loy replied that he was "tidying up." Mrs. Nathanic reported over the phone to Engbert that two men were standing in each doorway of the entrance to the store, and that she would not go back in. At the conclusion of the phone call, Mrs. Nathamc again said to Loy that she did not see why she could not go back into the store to shop. Loy replied that if she did so, he would have the security guard arrest her for trespassing. Mrs. Nathanic replied, "Why don't you have him arrest me then?" but then proceeded toward her automobile followed and operates retail dry goods stores in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and elsewhere During the preceding 12 months. Respondent's gross sales exceeded $500,000, and, during the same period , it received in Pennsylvania goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from points and places outside Pennsylvania The Board has already asserted jurisdiction over this Respondent in W T Grant Company (Dayton, Ohio), 195 NLRB 1000 Accordingly, I conclude that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 The transcript errors herein are hereby noted and corrected 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by a security guard. After getting in her car, she left the premises. One of the organizing efforts sponsored by the Union was a meeting which took place on May 6, 1973, at the union hall. About 30 employees attended, including Albert A. Romanow. Romanow had been employed by the Respondent for 5 years and worked in the drapery department selling draperies, curtains, and curtain rods. His responsibilities included both over-the-counter sales and so-called installation selling. He received $2.50 per hour, plus a commission on his sales. From the outset of the organizing drive, Romanow had talked favorably about the Union to various employees. On May 4, 2 days earlier, he had asked employee Betty Thomas to join the Union and referred her to employee Barnhart or employee Cameron, who had cards in their possession. At the May 6 meeting, he asked a number of questions relating to proposed union benefits. At the conclusion of the meeting, the organizers asked if anyone present had not signed a designation card. Romanow volunteered in front of the audience that he had not as yet done so, and thereupon signed a card in the presence of those assembled. Before he left the hall, Romanow had a conversation with Mrs. Nathanic during which he volunteered to post the Board notice relating to employee rights which the Respondent had previously declined to post. In the next day or so, Romanow went to the so-called ladies lounge4 in Store 789, along with employee Barnhart, and posted on the wall a photostatic reproduction of the Board notice relating to employee rights which Mrs. Nathamc had furnished him. On May 8 and 9, Store 789 was visited by Paul M. Meehan, Respondent's house counsel on labor matters. Respondent operates about 600 retail stores throughout the United States. When one of them is confronted by a union organizing campaign, Meehan visits the store in question and conducts an informational session with groups of employees to inform them of the existing company benefits, the procedures surrounding a representation election, to answer any question they might pose, and to urge them to vote against the union. He conducted four such meetings with different groups of employees at Store 789. Employees met with Meehan in four separate sessions which were held at different times so as not to interrupt the normal operations of the store. Loy and Gearhart attended these meetings. At the end of the session attended by Romanow, after Meehan had asked for any questions, Romanow came over to Meehan and said: "Why don't you say something about union benefits?" and offered to tell Meehan why some of the employees would like to join the Union. He proceeded to relate to Meehan an instance when a female employee, who was laid off before Christmas, was not rehired because she had filed for unemployment compensation contrary to the instructions given to her by the personnel manager, Mrs. Lively. Romanow also complained to Meehan about the long Friday shift, during which he had to work from 9 a.m. until 4 The area in question is generally referred to as the ladies lounge but is in actuality an employee rest area used by both men and women employees. a The times of the meetings in Gearhart's office are in sharp dispute. Gearhart and Loy, as well as payroll Clerk Christine Vilkofsky, place the meeting times at between 9 :30 and 10 a in. Romanow asserts with equal assurance that these events took place about noon. He recalls that he was 10 p.m. He also complained that Mrs. Lively wanted him to furnish her with the answers to a confidential written inquiry concerning his personal financial situation which had been given to him to fill out. Romanow had insisted on mailing it directly to the company headquarters in New York. On the evening of May 10, Store Manager Gearhart told Romanow that he wanted to talk with him but indicated that the matter could wait until the following morning. On the morning of Friday, May 11, Romanow was summoned to Gearhart's office.5 Loy was present when he arrived. Gearhart mentioned to Romanow that, on the previous Monday, Charles Rocco, regional supervisor of Grant's shop-at-home department, had visited Store 789 and had commented unfavorably on the promotional efforts in the drapery department. He had criticized two customer solicitation programs, the 31-1 and the 5-10-5 programs, in accordance with which certain installation salesmen were requested to make a certain number of phone calls and write a certain number of letters to prospects, keep files on such persons, and then make follow-up efforts at a later date. Gearhart asked Romanow in what shape his 31-I files were, and Romanow replied that they were not being kept up because he had to work the counters and did not have time for phone solicitations.6 Gearhart reminded Romanow that he had to keep his 31-1 file current. Romanow argued that, in his experience with the 31-1 campaign, it had produced no results and that Lawrence Canale, the former manager at Store 789, had told him that he did not have to bother with the 31 -1 file. Loy then chimed in: "Are you telling me how to run my store? I guess you will have to give me a two-week notice." Loy and Gearhart dispute this statement, claiming it was Romanow who offered to give them a 2-week notice. I credit Romanow's version. According to Loy and Gear- hart, Romanow reportedly stated: "If I have to keep up the 31-1 file, I'll give you a two-week notice." At this point, Loy left the room and a discussion ensued between Gearhart and Romanow. Romanow asked Gear- hart whether it would be possible to treat the termination as a layoff rather than a discharge, and referred to the persistent rash on his hands as a possible reason which might justify a disability layoff. Romanow also threatened to file a charge if the matter were not treated as a layoff. Gearhart gave no answer and Romanow left, going directly to Loy's office to ask whether the two of them could discuss the matter. Loy replied that there was nothing to discuss, so Romanow returned to the drapery department. Loy and Gearhart held a brief discussion between them concerning Romanow's request to treat the termination as a disability layoff, and his threat to file a charge if this were not done. Both agreed to require Romanow to leave immediately and indicated in their testimony that they were not going to be "blackmailed" by Romanow's threat to go to the National Labor Relations Board. They decided to give Romanow I week's pay, so Gearhart instructed the late for a noontime engagement because of the dispute with Gearhart and Loy, and thus missed his normal lunch hour. It is not necessary to resolve this conflict r Both Loy and Gearhart admitted that, before this time, they had paid little or no attention to the phone and mail solicitation programs at Store 789 W. T. GRANT CO. payroll department to make up Romanow's final pay, including commissions, and I week's termination pay. A few minutes later, Romanow came back to the office and was handed his pay, which was something in excess of $500, in cash. As Romanow was counting the money, Loy told him that the money was all there and to pick it up and leave. As he left the office, Romanow was met by a management trainee named Egoff who escorted him to his desk in the drapery department. Romanow gathered up a few personal belongings, and then Egoff escorted him to his car. On his way out, an employee, Mrs. Faye Thomas, asked Romanow what had occurred. Romanow replied that he had been fired. B. Discussion 1. The violations of Section 8(a)(1) Mrs. Nathanic's visit to the Grant store on May 4 was made for the explicit purpose of speaking to the store manager to request him to post a notice, previously sent to him by the Board's Regional Office in Pittsburgh, which outlines the statutory protections afforded to employees by the Act. At this point in the processing of a representation petition, an employer's decision to post such a notice is wholly optional. However, Mrs. Nathanic was also well within the law in requesting that the notice be posted and in inquiring as to what reasons Grant might have in declining to post the notice. There is no evidence in this record that the purpose of her visit was to solicit union memberships from store employees, or to interrupt in any way the performance of services by those employees for the Respondent When she arrived at the store, she went directly to a clerk to announce her presence, promptly identified herself, and requested to see the manager. What ensued in the aisles of Store 789, in full view of both customers and employees, was provoked by the reaction of the Respondent to her presence and to her inquiry. There is no evidence in this record that Grant had established at Store 789 any kind of no-solicitation rule, either valid or invalid, so that the treatment accorded to Mrs. Nathanic on this occasion is not governed by the body of law which has been established in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in N.L.R B. v. Babcock & Wilcox Company, 351 U.S. 105 (1956). Indeed, the reason proffered by Operations Manager Abbott Loy when he expelled Mrs. Nathanic from the store ("Your face might start a riot") was in the nature of a humiliating wisecrack rather than the invocation of a legal right. The record is barren of any suggestion that a disturbance could result from her simple, straightforward request to speak to the store manager. The fact that Mrs. Nathanic was followed from the store by a procession of Loy's subalterns was an overreaction which served only to advertise the Respondent's desire to rid itself of the presence of a union organizer . Mrs. Nathanic had previously been a customer of Grant and was in need of matching material to complete an article of clothing she was making. The fact that her shopping privileges were withdrawn at this time, and in a manner calculated to embarrass her in the eyes of store employees, was not an 53 7 G C Murphy, 171 NLRB 370, Franklin Stores Corporation, 199 NLRB 247 assertion of a common law property right but was an interference with the right of employee self-organization, and thus constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Heck's, Inc., 156 NLRB 760, 761, 773. Loy was not satisfied with merely seeing Mrs. Nathanic to the door . After expelling her, he stationed himself next to a public pay phone in the outer lobby in order to overhear her telephone conversation with Union President Engbert. While a retail employer has the right to keep an eye on a union organizer who is circulating about the public areas of his store,7 this right does not extend to listening in on a private telephone conversation. The conversation in question took place in a public place adjacent to the store and was directly related, both in substance and in point of time , to the public and unceremonious eviction of Mrs . Nathamc from the store. There can be little doubt that this further effort by Loy to harass Mrs. Nathanic was observed by store employees, including but not limited to the four men who were standing in the doorways of the store to prevent Mrs. Nathanic from reentering. Accordingly, I conclude that Loy's action in eavesdropping on Mrs . Nathanic's phone conversation constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Leggett's Department Store of Princeton, West Virginia, 134 NLRB 1171. Loy then compounded his previous wrongdoing by threatening Mrs. Nathanic with arrest if she should attempt to re-enter the store for the purpose of shopping. There is also little doubt that such actions escaped the notice of store employees, as his remarks were part and parcel of the dramatic incident which involved her original eviction. A threat to arrest, made in pursuance of actions which are themselves unlawful under the Act, is' also a violation of Section 8(a)(1). Accordingly, I find that Loy's threat to arrest Mrs. Nathamc constitutes such a violation. Priced-Less Discount Foods, Inc., Payless, 162 NLRB 872; Peddie-Buildings, 203 NLRB No. 27; Scott Hudgens, 192 NLRB 671; The Loray Corporation, 184 NLRB 557. The actions of the Respondent during this incident bear a remarkable similarity to the eviction by this Respondent of another union organizer, coupled with an attempt of a civil arrest, which took place at Grant's Dayton, Ohio, store. The Board, with court approval , found the Dayton incident to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. That case serves as clear precedent for all of the findings made above relating to the Johnstown store . W. T. Grant Co., 185 NLRB 88, enfd. 455 F.2d 518 (C.A. 6, 1972). 2. The discriminatory discharge of Albert A. Romanow The termination of Romanow must be evaluated against the background of the animus discussed above, the animus displayed by Respondent's witnesses Gearhart and Loy as they testified in this proceeding, and the more remote evidence of antiunion hostility which was demonstrated by this Respondent in the W. T. Grant Co. - Dayton case, noted supra. If Respondent's principal witnesses, Loy and Gearhart, were fully credited, a finding would logically 248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ensue, based upon their testimony alone, that the Respon- dent had discharged Romanow in contravention to Section 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act. According to the Respondent's version, Romanow was summoned to Gearhart's office on the morning of May 11 and told that he had to maintain his 31-1 file and pursue customer leads through direct solicitation, whereupon Romanow said that if he had to keep up his 31-1 file, he would tender 2-weeks' notice. Such remarks by Romanow, in and of themselves, are conditional and hardly constitute a clear and unequivocal resignation. However, construing this statement in a light most favorable to the Respondent, it could mean, at best. that on May 11, Romanow submitted a resignation to become effective on May 25. Following Respondent's version, Romanow then suffered a slight change of mind, requested that the resignation be treated as a disability layoff because of a skin rash, and then threatened to go to the National Labor Relations Board if Gearhart refused to go along with his proposal. Gearhart objected to being "blackmailed" by the threat to file a charge, discussed the matter with Loy, and both agreed that because of his threat to file a charge, Romanow should not be allowed to wait until May 25 to leave his employment but should be removed from the payroll forthwith. As Loy put it on redirect examination: Q. Mr. Loy, when you left Mr. Gearhart's office after this initial meeting, had Mr. Romanow at that point stated that he was giving his two-weeks' notice? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when you came back in after Mr. Roma- now was paid and you had given him that pay, were you accepting his two-weeks' notice then? A. Yes. Originally, it was my intention to let it ride out for two weeks, if you understand what I mean; but when I discussed with Mr. Gearhart about, you know, that he was trying to blackmail us, I felt that I didn't even want him around those two weeks. JUDGE: By blackmailing, you mean threatening to go to the NLRB? WITNESS: Right. Thus, according to Loy and Gearhart, the Respondent, prompted by Romanow's threat to file a charge, decided not to accept Romanow's purported resignation in the terms proffered but instead decided to terminate him 2 weeks before the date designated by Romanow. This early removal, in and of itself, constitutes a discharge, not the acceptance of a resignation. As noted before, I do not credit the statements by Respondent's witnesses that Romanow tendered a resigna- tion, and I do credit Romanow's statement that he was in fact fired. Romanow was a prominent in-house union activist. He signed a card in full view of 30 employees, supported the organizing drive by statements to employees in the store, posted in the ladies lounge a copy of a Board notice which the Respondent had refused to post, and volubly supported the Union's position in statements to Respondent's labor counsel, Meehan, made in the presence of Loy and Gearhart. These acts made him a prime target for a respondent whose actions are colored by the union animus established herein by other evidence , including their own admissions. Romanow's burst of union activity took place within 10 days of his summary termination. While Romanow may not have been enamoured of his job at Store 789, it is highly unlikely that he would have abruptly quit after 5 years without at least some prospect of other employment with which to support his family. The sequence of events, as related by Respondent's witnesses, do not logically follow from a resignation, but more plausibly follow from a discharge and an attempt thereaft- er by the dischargee to negotiate with his employer for an improved on-the-spot financial settlement in lieu of initiating a formal Board proceeding. The fact that Romanow was actually escorted out of the store after being paid off is further illustration that the moving party in this termination was the Respondent , not Romanow. More- over, it should be noted that the assertion that Romanow had resigned serves Respondent's purpose in other ways than as a defense in a Board proceeding . By treating Romanow's termination as a voluntary quit , Respondent protected its experience rating with the Pennsylvania bureau of employment security . Romanow, whose termina- tion was treated as a voluntary quit, was prevented from drawing unemployment compensation until the expiration of a lengthy waiting period. In light of these factors, I conclude that Respondent discharged Albert A. Romanow in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record considered as a whole , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Albert A. Romanow, as found above, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By the acts and conduct set forth in Conclusions of Law No. 3, by evicting Gail Nathanic from its Store No. 789 and revoking her shopping privileges therein, by engaging in surveillance of her telephone conversation, and by threatening to arrest her if she re-entered said store in order to shop, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Such unfair labor practices affect commerce between the several states, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and to take other affirmative actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. I will recommend that the Respondent offer to Albert A. Romanow full and immediate reinstatement to his former position, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges, and to make him whole for any loss of pay that he may have suffered because of the W. T. GRANT CO discrimination found herein, in accordance with the Woolworth formula,8 with interest computed at 6 percent per annum. I will recommend that the Respondent be required to post at its Johnstown, Pennsylvania, store the attached notice marked "Appendix." I will also recom- mend that Respondent be required to notify Mrs. Gail Nathanic in writing that it has no objection to her shopping at Store No. 789 or at any other Grant store. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record herein considered as a whole, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the following recommended: ORDERS Respondent, W. T. Grant Company, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, because they have engaged in union activities. (b) Evicting, threatening the arrest of employees or union organizers who are properly in Respondent's store and are not engaged in improper union activities, placing the telephone conversations of union organizers and employ- ees under surveillance, and denying regular store service to union organizers who are properly in Respondent's store and not engaged in improper union activities. 8 F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 9 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 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 249 2 Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Albert A. Romanow full and immediate reinstatement to his former position, without prejudice to seniority or other rights previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay, including loss of commissions, suffered by him by reason of the discrimination found, in the manner described above in the section entitled "Remedy." (b) Notify Mrs. Gail Nathanic, in writing, that Respon- dent has no objection to her shopping in Store 789, or in any other store owned or operated by the Respondent. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll and other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this recommended order. (d) Post at its Store 789 at Johnstown, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted immediately by it upon receipt thereof, and shall be maiitained by Respondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspic- uous places, including all places where notices to employ- ees are customarily placed. 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 6, in writing, within 20 days after the date of receipt of this order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. deemed waived for all purposes io In the event the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "