Richman-Gordman Stores, Inc.

RICHMAN-GORDMAN STORES, INC. Richman-Gordman Stores, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union, Local 1015, chartered by Retail Clerks In- ternational Association, AFL-CIO. Cases 18-CA-4387 and 18-RC-10189 September 18, 1975 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO On May 16, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Rich- ard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached 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. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Richman-Gordman Stores, Inc., Council Bluffs, Iowa, store No. 10, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on November 12, 1974, in Case 18-RC-10189, among employees in the unit found appropriate by the Regional Director at the Employer's 1800 North 16th Street, Council Bluffs, Iowa, facility, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of Second Election and Excelsior fn. omitted from publication.] ' The Administrative Law Judge found an unlawful interrogation of em- ployee Brandt by Store Manager Clifford, based on Brandt 's testimony to that effect, even though General Counsel had stated that his examination would relate solely to a specific portion of the complaint which alleged only solicitation . Respondent excepts partly because this particular interrogation was not alleged in the complaint . In these circumstances, we do not adopt this finding. Although the Administrative Law Judge did not specifically enunciate a finding of interrogation of certain employees by Department Manager Rob- erts, as described by employees Coffman , Hadar, and Ellis, we interpret his crediting of witnesses as establishing that he did in fact find that Roberts had violated Sec. 8(a) (I) of the Act by her conduct, as reflected by his Conclusion of Law 3. Member Jenkins does not agree that employee Coffman 's testimony was sufficiently corroborated by employee Ellis to be the basis for finding inter- rogation by Department Manager Roberts DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 453 RICHARD L. DENISON, Administrative Law Judge: This consolidated proceeding, under Section 10(b) and Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was tried, pursuant to due notice, before me, on March 4 and 5, 1975, at Council Bluffs, Iowa. The charge in Case 18-CA-4387 was filed on November 18, 1974, by Retail Clerks Union, Local 1015, charter by Retail Clerks Inter- national Association, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Charging Party-Petitioner.' The complaint, originally issued on January 10, 1975, and amended at the hearing, alleges that Richman-Gordman Stores, Inc., hereinafter called Respondent-Employer, has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in surveillance, interrogations, promises to adjust solicited grievances, and various other types of interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In its answer, the Respondent- Employer denies having violated the Act as alleged in the complaint. The petition for certification of representative in Case 18-RC-10189 was filed on August 14, and thereafter, pur- suant to the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election dated October 15, an election was held on No- vember 12 among certain employees of the Respondent- Employer? The Charging Party-Petitioner lost the election and thereafter filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. By a Supplemental Decision and Order dated January 16, 1975, the Regional Director, hav- ing investigated the objections, directed a hearing on Charging Party-Petitioner's Objections 11, 12, and 13 which alleged in substance, that the Respondent-Employer engaged in surveillance and other acts of restraint and coercion during the critical period, and "that these and other related acts and conduct illegally interfered with the exercise of free choice by the employees as to the election conducted." Since the conduct described in paragraph 8, subparagraphs (a) thru 0) of the complaint, as amended, in Case 18-CA-4387 coincides with that alleged in Petitioner's Objections 11, 12, and 13, in Case 18-RC-10189, these cases were ordered consolidated for hearing.3 All parties were afforded a full opportunity to partici- pate in the hearing and to argue orally. The General Coun- sel and the Respondent have filed briefs which have been i All dates are in 1974 unless otherwise specified. 2 All full-time and regular part-time selling and nonselling employees em- ployed by the employer at its 1800 North Sixteenth Street, Council Bluffs, Iowa. facility; excluding store manager, assistant store managers, area su- pervisors, department managers, confidential employees, casual employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act 3 Only the events occurring between the date of the filing of the petition and the date of the election may serve as a basis for objections to an elec- tion The Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Company, 134 N LRB 1275 (1961) 220 NLRB No. 78 454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD carefully considered .4 Upon the entire record in the case and from my observations of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINIiINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent-Employer, Richman-Gordman Stores, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, maintains its principal office and place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Respondent-Em- ployer is engaged in the retail-sale of general merchandise. Only the Council Bluffs Iowa store No. 10 is involved in this proceeding. During the past calendar year, a represen- tative period, in the course and conduct of its operations, Respondent-Employer received gross revenues in excess of $500,000. During the same period of time, Respondent pur- chased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were transported and delivered to Respondent's places of business directly across State lines. Based upon the foregoing, as admitted in its answer, I find and con- clude that Respondent-Employer is now and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. LABOR ORGANIZATION The Charging Party-Petitioner is now and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Supervisory Status and Agency At the hearing, Respondent-Employer amended its an- swer to admit that the following named persons were at all times material herein, supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Based upon credited record testi- mony concerning their titles, official duties, and conduct with respect to the issues before me, I find that they were, at all times material herein, supervisors and agents within the meaning of the Act, and occupied the positions as set forth following their respective names : Daniel J. Clifford, store manager ; Lyle Karre, assistant manager, hardlines; Frank Rayer, assistant manager, softlines ; Thomas P. Paz- derka, pharmacist manager ; Deborah Roberts, department manager, women's straight wear; and Hal C. Urban, assis- tant manager, shoe department. meetings in one of the meeting rooms of the Holiday Inn at Council Bluffs, Iowa, on October 4 and November 4. No other meetings were held there during those months. Ac- cording to the credited testimony of employees Tracy Fancher and Anne Marie Gilmore, they drove together to the October 4 union meeting, and as they were walking from the car across the parking lot, toward the motel, they saw Store Manager Daniel Clifford pass through the light- ed motel driveway at a distance of between 2 to 10 feet away.5 Clifford was driving a blue volkswagon. Both em- ployees called out "Hi, Dan" as he drove by. On cross- examination both witnesses insisted that they were positive in their identification of Clifford. Gene L. Babb and Gary K. Lundin, president and secre- tary-treasurer, respectively, of Local 1015, credibly testified that they observed Clifford and Hal Urban together sitting in Clifford's other car, a red Chevrolet, in the parking lot of the Holiday Inn on the night of November 4. Babb and Lundin arrived before 9:30 p.m. They planned to attend the last part of the first meeting, which had begun at 8 p.m., and then to be present for the second meeting sched- uled for 10:30 p.m. Upon entering the meeting room, they were informed by some of those present, that Clifford had been seen at a service station at the intersection of Avenue N and North 25th Street, about two blocks away. Babb and Lundin left the meeting and proceeded to search for Clifford in Babb's car. After making a circuit of the streets in the general vicinity of the motel area, they returned to the parking lot about 10:30 to 10:45. There they saw Clif- ford and Urban sitting in Clifford's car in the lighted motel parking lot approximately 150 feet from the glass doors of the separate entrance to the meeting room area. Babb pulled his car next to the driver's side and asked Clifford what he was doing there. Clifford replied that he was there to see some people. Babb asked, "How dumb can you be, being there in the light and watching the meeting, because you've been caught at it once?" Then Babb rolled the win- dows up, drove to the front of the motel, and parked. Then he and Lundin stood outside until Clifford started his car and drove away, honking the horn and waving as he passed. Clifford admitted owning a 1972 blue Volkswagen and a 1966 red Chevrolet, but denied ever having been present in the Holiday parking lot, or in any way spying on the October 4 and November 4 union meetings at the Holiday Inn .6 Clifford denied having a conversation with Babb or Lundin on November 4, but agreed he knew in advance B. Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Within the Critical Period 1. Surveillance It is undisputed that as a part of its organizational drive among Respondent's employees, Local 1015 held union Respondent's motion made at the outset of the hearing and renewed in its brief, to dismiss the complaint based on the General Counsel's refusal to answer certain interrogatories, is denied for the reasons set forth in my original ruling on the record. Fancher estimated the distance to be from 2 to 4 feet . Gilmore estimated it was about the length of a courtroom bench. 6 Hal Urban did not testify. However, I draw no adverse inference to Respondent from this fact, since at the time of the hearing he was no longer employed by the Respondent and the circumstances concerning his depar- ture, as described in the record, are such as might normally be expected to make him a hostile witness. RICHMAN-GORDMAN STORES, INC. 455 about the meeting, and that it would have been possible for someone to have observed him on that night between 10 and 10:30 p.m. at a filling station at the intersection of North 25th Street and Avenue N. Clifford's normal route home, after working in the evening at the store, is to pro- ceed down North 25th Street to an entrance ramp to Inter- state 29. He agreed that he passed this location approxi- mately 10:30 p.m. that evening and that Hal Urban accompanied him. Clifford stated that closing time at the store is 10 p.m. He normally works on Monday, Wednes- day, and Friday nights, leaving about 10:30 p.m. He testi- fied that he had no recollection of any particular events on October 4. I have carefully considered Clifford's denial of surveillance and his testimony that he had been advised by counsel not to engage in such conduct, against his admis- sions and the detailed and mutually corroborative testimo- ny of Fancher and Gilmore and Babb and Lundin, which withstood searching cross-examinations.' I credit the Gen- eral Counsel's witnesses and find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on October 4 and November 4 by its supervisors' surveillance of employee union meet- ings. 2. Interrogation and other alleged interference, restraint, and coercion According to David Brandt, Clifford and he discussed the Union about 10 a.m. one morning in mid-October, just after the store opened. Brandt was alone in the stockroom at the time, near the receiving doors, when Clifford ap- proached and asked how things were going. Brandt an- swered that they were going pretty smooth, except for a few people who were not keeping up their end of the job. Then, after a few more specific questions about Brandt's work in the stockroom, Clifford said that he and the rest of the managers were looking at Brandt as possible manage- ment material. He explained that this would involve going from punching a timeclock to a salary, plus an increased discount from 15 to 20 percent. After a few additional questions about the stockroom, Clifford asked if Brandt knew anything about the employees' gripes with manage- ment. Brandt answered that a few people had been upset in July, during inventory, when after having been required to work 4-hours overtime, the Company required them to take a whole day off to compensate for the overtime worked. Clifford responded that he had straightened this out with a few of the full-time employees who had come to him and asked about it. Then Clifford asked if Brandt re- spected him as manager, and said that his door was open any time Brandt had a problem. Next Clifford asked Brandt how he felt about the Union, or if he felt the people really needed a third party to get their problems straight- ened out between employees and management. Brandt re- sponded that he did not know much about it at that time, and the conversation ended. Clifford agreed to having had a conversation with Brandt in mid-October about the Union, but denied inter- rogating him concerning his union sympathies. Clifford 7 A sequestration motion, made by Respondent at the outset of the hear- ing, was granted. stated that he did not remember telling Brandt that he would take care of any grievances Brandt might have, but did remember Brandt mentioning the July inventory over- time problem, which Clifford agreed was remedied prior to the time of this conversation. Clifford admitted asking Brandt if he had any questions about the Union. To the extent that Clifford's version of the conversation differs from that of Brandt, I credit Brandt. I have considered and credit Clifford's testimony that, at various times during the election campaign, he and other company supervisors met with their attorneys and received legal advice concerning what they could and could not do in talking with employ- ees concerning the Union and answering their questions. I have likewise considered that it is difficult for a layman, in the give and take of actual conversation, to strictly apply or adhere to such advice. In the final analysis, Brandt im- pressed me as a forthright and candid witness who was doing his best to tell the truth. Clifford did not. In testify- ing, concerning this conversation, and with respect to other allegations in the complaint dealing with his conduct, Clif- ford impressed me as a witness carefully prepared to tell a winning version for the Company, and thus avoid the con- sequence of a possible rerun election. Furthermore, despite his somewhat glib and polished demeanor, Clifford's recol- lection failed him at certain crucial points in his testimony while at other points he made admissions which corrobor- ated the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses. Consequently, where conflicts appear between Clifford's version of events and those testified to by the witnesses for the General Counsel, I have credited the testimony of Gen- eral Counsel's witnesses, except where specifically noted. Janice Sweeny credibly testified that on or about Octo- ber 23, Clifford talked with her while she was stocking shelves in her department. Clifford asked "What was going on with the situation of the Union and voting and, you know, just asked me what was going on." Sweeny answered that she was confused. Then Clifford said he did not think the store needed the Union, that he would take care of his people, and the employees did not need someone to speak for them. He ended the conversation with an example. He said if there was a union in the store and the customer broke a bottle of catsup in front of the check-out stand, the cashier or someone near by could not be told to clean it up because the cashier would say it was not her job. Although I find that Clifford's questioning Sweeny con- cerning what was going on with the Union constituted un- lawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I do not find that Clifford's rather general statement, that he would take care of his people and the employees did not need a union to speak for them, violates the Act as alleged in paragraph 8(b) of the complaint. There is no evidence that Clifford asked Sweeny to identify her griev- ances, or that any complaints were voiced. The hypotheti- cal example outlined by Clifford alluded to an allegedly rigid union position concerning job duties, and did not re- fer to grievances. I further find that in Clifford's remarks to David Brandt he did unlawfully solicit and promise to ad- just grievances. Thus, after specifically asking Brandt to list employee "gripes," and Brandt responded, Clifford de- scribed how the "gripe" which Grant mentioned had been resolved. Immediately thereafter, Clifford asked Brandt if 456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he respected him as manager, and said that his door was open any time Brandt had a problem. In this way, Clifford strongly implied that future grievances would be remedied. However, Clifford continued, removing any room for doubt, by unlawfully interrogating Brandt concerning whether he felt the people really needed a third party to get their problems straightened out between employees and management. In this context, I find that Clifford's remarks clearly violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act .8 Paragraph 8(c) of the complaint alleges that during the week of October 21, Lyle Karre unlawfully held individual meetings with employees at the store for the purpose of discouraging their union sentiments and desires . In support of this allegation, the General Counsel offered testimony which I credit, from employees Janice Sweeny and Randall Town. According to Sweeny, on October 23, she was called to the office for the purpose of switching her from the toy department to the vestibule. While she was there alone with Kane, he asked her if she had any questions. Sweeny replied she was confused, and Kane responded "Richman- Gordman will take care of us , and we don't need a union for our store situation." This was all of the conversation Sweeney was able to relate, although she insisted that it lasted from 45 minutes to an hour. Kane did not testify. Kane talked with Randall Town in the office for about 2-1/2 hours beginning about 1 p.m. sometime between the second and fourth week in October. Kane handed Town a copy of a letter the Company had sent to the employees and asked him to read it.9 Town responded he had already read it, but Karre asked him to read it again to see if he had any questions about it. Although Town testified on direct examination he did not have any questions , he later testified on cross-examination that much of the interview time was taken up by questions he asked and voluntary comments which he made. However, Town did not specify what his remarks were except to say that he talked about his job and his future-"trying to ask him, you know, like where the union thought they might help, if he could do the same thing or what he thought the union was about. It was about like that." In urging that Karre's conduct described above violated the Act, the General Counsel places great emphasis on the fact that the interview was held in the assistant managers' office. This, however, is only one of the criteria considered by the Board in assessing whether or not such incidents as these constitute Section 8(a)(1) violations and/or objec- tionable conduct; I find that Karre did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, considering his interviews with Sweeny and Town in their total contexts. Furthermore, as noted by Respondent in its brief, the Board has held that such meet- ings with employees are not invalid per se. NVF Company, Hartwell Division, 210 NLRB 663 (1974). Therefore, I also find that Karre's interviews with Town and Sweeny did not constitute objectionable conduct. 8In my view, Uarco Incorporated, 216 NLRB No 2 (1974); and Draggoo Electric Co. Inc, 214 NLRB No. 120 (1974), cited by Respondent, when considered against the background of Respondent's other violations as found herein, tend to support rather than weigh against the finding of a violation in this respect 9 It is not contended by the General Counsel that the letter, in evidence as G C.Exh. 3, is per se violative of Sec. 8(a)(1). I make no such findings. Patricia Walck was hired by Respondent in October in 1973, as a sign maker. She testified that Dan Clifford talked to her from 3:45 until 5 p.m. in the sign shop on October 31. Clifford asked if she had any questions about the Union and if she understood about the Union. Walck replied she did not have any questions and she understood. She then asked for a copy of the letter the Company had sent out and Clifford responded that she was going to get one in the mail, but he would show her one anyway. He brought her a copy and they talked about the contents of the letter. Then Clifford asked if she thought that the Union would be a good thing. Walck answered she wasn't sure, and asked why the letter wasn't signed. Clifford re- ferred her to the heading of the first page, and then he said that if the Union was a good thing, the Grant and Target stores would have one. He said that if Richman-Gordman got a union in, it would be ridiculous for their store, be- cause grocery stores and retail stores were different and it would not work for a retail store. Then Clifford asked if she had been talking to other employees about the Union, and if employees had asked her questions about the Union. He asked how many, and if a lot of people knew what was going on, and did they know if there was going to be an election or not. Walck answered, she wasn't sure but knew that a lot of people were talking about it. Walck said she was not going away from her job to talk to people about the Union. Then Clifford asked if she thought the store was a better place to work since he had taken over. Walck an- swered, said it was, but, "we thought that there were a lot of things that weren't right." Clifford asked who she meant by "we." Walck responded, "the employees." Then Clif- ford told her she should not have employees gathering in the sign shop. He said she was having gatherings in there, and that he did not want to see people standing around in there just talking. Walck responded was it just because people were standing there talking to her or talking about the Union. She also said they could be talking to her and still be working. Then Clifford stated he did not want to see her run around behind his back talking about the Union, and he did not want to waste his time watching her all the time. Walck denied the accusation and asked, "Do you want me just to quit talking to people altogether about this?" Clifford answered, "Yes, I would like that." He then said she should not be going around talking to the part- time people. He said she was influencing them because they were naive. Then according to Walck it was time for her to leave for the day, but Clifford stood in the doorway barring her exit until after she had promised to stop talking to employees about the Union. Clifford admitted having a 10 minute conversation with Walck in the sign shop in which the topics of the Company's letter, the differences between retail stores and grocery stores, and Walck's talking with other employees were discussed. Clifford denied interrogating Walck or tell- ing her to stop talking about the Union. He stated that the Company had no policy prohibiting employees from talk- ing while working. Walck impressed me as a person with an excellent memory in that she unhesitatingly recounted in detail the contents of the lengthy conversation with Clif- ford. For these reasons, and others discussed earlier in this decision, I credit her testimony over that of Clifford con- RICHMAN-GORDMAN STORES, INC. cerning what was said during the October 31 conversation. I do, however, credit Clifford's denial of Walck's accusa- tion that he barred her exit from the sign shop by standing in the doorway, since Clifford testified without contradic- tion that the entrance way to the sign shop is open and without a doorway which could be blocked in this manner. I find that Clifford interrogated Walck and instructed her not to talk to her employees or influence them about the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.10 According to Tanya Donney, her supervisor, Pharmacist Manager Thomas P. Pazderka, talked to her about the Union in late October. Pazderka asked why Donney was still involved with the Union. He said it would not do the employees any good, and they would settle for the mini- mum wage, and that by the time they paid their union dues they would not be making any money. Pazderka contin- ued, saying they would settle for the same insurance pro- gram that they already had and the Company had been good to Donney, who should not complain, because she had received a paid vacation. Pazderka said the Company could not afford to pay them any more than they were paying right then, and that she should keep quiet about the Union, not say anything, and act like a dummy when someone asked her about it. Later in the day, Pazderka came to Donney again, repeated many of the things he had said before, and added that he was sure, once the Compa- ny got on their feet they would make her health and beauty aids department manager. Pazderka admitted talking to Donney about the Union prior to the election, but denied telling her not to discuss the Union, or that she would be promoted if she would abandon the Union. He admitted on occasion, to have jok- ingly made such comments as "Here comes the ring lead- er." I credit Donney's version and find that by Pazderka's conduct described above, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in paragraphs 8(e) and (j) of the complaint. Barbara Hailar testified that, on a Wednesday during the latter part of October, Women's Department Manager Deborah L. Roberts questioned Hailar about the Union by her desk in the fitting room. Nancy Gustafson and Linda Ellis were present. Roberts asked how they were going to vote. Hailar responded that it was her concern, not Rob- erts. The other two employees said they had not decided yet. Roberts ended the conversation by saying she thought they had made up their minds by then. Clara Coffman, a sales clerk, testified that Roberts talked to her and Linda Ellis about the Union in late Octo- ber. The two employees were in the women's department at that time when Roberts approached, said she would like to discuss a few things with them about the Union, and led them to the snack bar. She began by telling them that the store would not be as nice a place to work if they had a union because they would only be able "to do one thing and one thing only," and they would probably go out on strike. Then Roberts asked Coffman where her husband 10 No evidence was presented through Walck or any other witness that on October 31 , Daniel Clifford solicited and promised to adjust grievances to discourage employees' union sentiments and desires as alleged in paragraph 8(g) of the complaint. 457 worked, and if he were union. Coffman replied, "Yes, defi- nitely, there is no other way to go." Then Roberts asked how Coffman was going to vote, and Coffman replied she did not know yet. The conversation which lasted about 15 to 20 minutes, ended at that point. Roberts denied having any conversation at all with Barbara Hailar about the Union. She admitted having a conversation prior to the election in the snack bar with Clara Coffman and Linda Ellis in which she asked if their husbands worked for a labor organization. However, she denied asking them how they were going to vote or if they had signed a card. Roberts testified that she had been ad- vised not to ask this type of question, and that in talking to the employees she used the Company letter (G.C. Exh. 3) as a basis for her remarks. Linda Ellis testified that Roberts explained what would happen if the Union came in and what would happen if it did not. She said Roberts glanced from time to time at a blue piece of paper, but was unable to identify it as General Counsel's Exhibit 3. On direct examination Ellis testified that she did not remember if Roberts asked anyone how they were going to vote, and that she could not say if she did or did not. On cross- examination, Ellis testified that Roberts asked if their hus- bands worked for the union, and in addition asked, "Have you made up your mind?" to which Ellis answered "Yes, I have made up my mind." Ellis was unable to remember anything concerning a conversation involving herself, Gus- tafson, Hailar, and Roberts in the fitting room. Since Rob- erts' admissions and the testimony of Ellis tend to corrob- orate Coffman, I credit Coffman's version. I also credit Barbara Hailar's testimony instead of Roberts' denial. Hai- lar impressed me as a straightforward and honest witness, and her testimony about the conversation with Roberts closely conforms to the other employees' version of Rob- erts' remarks. C. Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Following the November 12 Election Tanya Donney had a third conversation with Pazderka on November 13. Donney told Pazderka that she was afraid the Company would find a reason to fire her. Paz- derka said not to worry about it because he had talked to Lyle Karre who had said he would not fire her because she was good help and he did not want to see her go. Then Pazderka told Donney that Karre had said that if it had not been for her union activities she could be making 50 cents an hour more. Pazderka stated that he had talked to Clifford about it, and that Clifford had also said that he would not fire her. Pazderka told Donney she was good help, for her to take 10 minute breaks, and not to talk to anyone about the Union. He said she should act like she was deaf and dumb when it came to talking about the Union. He said she should tell him where she was going all the time, and what she was going to do. If she did that, and they tried to fire her, he could stick up for her. Pazderka agreed that he talked to Donney on the day following the election because Donney was worried about losing her job because of her union involvement. He testi- fied that he told her "Well, if you applied yourself to your work, you could be making more money. In other words, 458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD your extracurricular activities, if you applied yourself more to your work, you could make more money." Pazderka testified that this was the only statement that he ever made to her about making more money, but that he could not recall the words he used in attempting to calm Donney's fears about losing her job. Here again Donney exhibited a better memory, and thus gave a more detailed version than did Pazderka. I credit her, and find that Pazderka's re- marks, as she related them, constituted an implied threat of discharge if Donney did not discontinue all of her activities on behalf of the Union. Steve L. Markussen testified that in early December he asked shoe department Assistant Manager Hal Urban in the stockroom if he had been talked to by any union peo- ple or anyone represented by them. Urban replied he had not. A couple of days later, Urban told Markussen that he was supposed to appear and was going to, but that Clifford had told him to lie and not to endanger the Company's position in any way. Urban continued saying he had al- ready perjured himself a couple of times and it would not hurt him anymore. Patricia Walck also testified that she had a similiar conversation approximately December 3 or 4, on the day before the Board agent came to the store." During the conversation which took place in the shoe de- partment, Urban told her that the Board agent was going to talk to him, and if he did not tell her what the Company wanted him to tell her, they would fire him. Markussen's and Walck's testimonies are mutually corroborative. They are credited. Since Urban was a supervisor for Respon- dent, at the time he made these remarks, it is clear that Respondent must bear the responsibility for the coercive impact of these statements, regardless of their truth or fal- sity. I find that Urban's remarks to Markussen and Walck violated Section 8(a)(1) in that they clearly were designed to impress employees with the message, true or not, that the Respondent-Employer was willing to break the law and abuse the processes of the Board in order to frustrate its employees' efforts to secure redress from Respondent's un- fair labor practices, and to obtain another election. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent-Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Charging Party-Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in surveillance of its employees' union meetings on October 4 and November 4, by soliciting and promising to adjust their grievances, and by interrogating them, threatening them, and engaging in other conduct constituting interference, restraint, or coercion as de- scribed in this decision, the Respondent-Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. Respondent-Employer has not violated the Act in any respects other than those specifically found. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. It Apparently to investigate the charge and objections which gave rise to this proceeding. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent-Employer has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, including posting appropriate notices at its Council Bluffs, Iowa, store No. 10. 1 shall also recom- mend that Charging Party-Petitioner's Objections 11, 12, and 13 be sustained, and that the election held on Novem- ber 12 be set aside and a new election held. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 12 Respondent-Employer, Richman-Gordman Stores, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in surveillance of its employees' union meetings and activities. (b) Soliciting and promising to adjust its employees' grievances for the purpose of discouraging its employees' union sentiments and desires. (c) Interrogating employees concerning their union sym- pathies, activities, and desires, and the union activities, sympathies, and desires of other employees. (d) Instructing employees not to discuss the Union with each other. (e) Promising employees benefits to discontinue or to refrain from engaging in union activities. (f) Threatening employees that a cessation of all their union activities would protect them from being discharged by the Company. (g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its Council Bluffs, Iowa, store No. 10, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix" 13 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, shall be signed by an authorized representative of the Company and posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all locations where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18 in writ- e 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 he deemed waived for all purposes. IS 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." RICHMAN-GORDMAN STORES, INC. ing within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Charging Party- Petitioner's Objections 11, 12, and 13, as set forth in the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and Order Di- recting Hearing and Order Consolidating Cases and Notice of Hearing (G.C. Exh. 1(j)) be sustained and that the re- sults of the election of November 12 be set aside and a new election directed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in all other respects. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which all parties had the opportunity to present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated the law and we have been ordered to post this notice. We intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employ- 459 ees' union meetings and activities. WE WILL NOT solicit and promise to adjust our em- ployees' grievances for the purpose of discouraging our employees' union sentiments and desires. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union sympathies, activities, and desires, and the union activities, sympathies, and desires of other em- ployees. WE WILL NOT instruct employees not to discuss the Union with each other. WE WILL NOT promise employees benefits to discon- tinue or refrain from engaging in union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten employees that a cessation of all their union activities would protect them from being discharged by the Company. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. All our employees are free to engage in union activities on behalf of Retail Clerks Union, Local 1015, chartered by Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Our employees are also free to refrain from any or all such activities. RICHMAN-GORDMAN STORES, INC.