W. T. Grant Regional Credit Center

W. T. GRANT REGIONAL CREDIT CENTER W. T. Grant Regional Credit 'Center and Southeast Council, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO. Case 10-CA-11197 and 10- CA-11481 August 11, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER On May 5, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Max Rosenberg issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions I and the General Counsel filed an answering brief to the exceptions. 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 I Respondent is an adjudicated bankrupt currently engaged in the liqui- dation of all its property and holdings On October 31, 1975, Bankruptcy Judge John Galgay of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, upon application, issued a restraining order staying and enjoining all persons, firms, and corporations from commencing or continuing any court or other proceeding against Respondent Respondent contends that because of the restraining order the Board is enjoined from entertaining this pro- ceeding and accordingly it should dismiss the complaint We disagree Respondent's contention that Board proceedings are subject to a general restraining order issued by a court of bankruptcy has been uniformly reject- ed in both court and Board decisions in N L R B v The Baldwin Locomo- tive Works, 128 F 2d 39, 44 (C A 3, 1942), a case involving the enforcement of a Board order, the court stated The jurisdiction of a United States District Court in bankruptcy does not embrace the power to treat with a debtor's unfair labor practices which affect commerce Nor is such a court's leave to the Board to proceed in appropriate manner required By Section 10(a) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, the Board is expressly empowered to pre- vent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practices affecting commerce, and that power is exclusive in the Board and unaffected "by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by agreement, code, law, or otherwise" The Act more- over explicitly removes the possibility of any restraint upon the Board's power which might be thought to arise where the employer's properties and business are operated under an order of a District Court in a reorganization proceeding in bankruptcy [See Sec 15 of the NLRA ] See also Matter of American Buslines, Inc, 151 F Supp 877 (D C Nebr, 1957), L E Durand Trustee in Bankruptcy of Turney Wood Products, Inc v N L R B, 296 F Supp 1049 (D C Ark, 1969), McKesson & Robbins, Inc, 19 NLRB 778 (1940), enfd with modifications not relevant here 121 F 2d 84 (CA DC, 1941) 2 In the absence of specific exceptions thereto, we adopt the findings of the Administrative Law Judge We note that the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Stephanie Rome was discharged in violation of Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act was founded almost exclusively on the offer of proof made by counsel for the General Counsel Rome did not appear at the hearing An offer of proof by itself is insufficient to sustain a finding of a violation of the Act However, inas- much as neither party has excepted thereto, we have adopted the finding of the Administrative Law Judge as to Rome 881 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, W. T. Grant Regional Credit Corp., East Point, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order. DECISION MAX ROSENBERG , Administrative Law Judge : These cases were heard before me on April 5, 1976, in Atlanta, Geor- gia, upon a consolidated complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer filed thereto by W. T. Grant Regional Credit Cen- ter, herein called the Respondent.' At issue is whether Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be detailed hereinafter . No briefs have been filed by the par- ties hereto. Upon the entire record made in this proceeding, includ- ing my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified on the stand, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Respondent, a corporation with an office and place of business located in Decatur, Georgia, is engaged in the operation of a credit collection and service center . During the annual period material to this proceeding , Respondent received revenues in excess of $500 ,000. During the same period, it purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside of Georgia. The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Southeast Council, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is admit- tedly a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and I so find. I The consolidated complaint, which issued on November 5, 1975, is based on charges filed in Case 10-CA-I 197 on April 4, 1975, and served on April 7, 1975, and charges filed in Case 10-CA-11481, which were filed and served on September 5, 1975 225 NLRB No. 121 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ent and he [Wade] told him [Forsyth] that he [Wade] thought that there were 25 people there and wanted to know . . . how it went." During the first or second week in March, Joy Forsyth engaged in a conversation with Supervisor Wade at the latter's desk. I find that, in the course of their colloquy, Wade questioned her as to "how my Union was going and I told him it wasn't my Union." Wade then inquired into the number of employees who were union adherents. Mrs. Forsyth responded that she was unaware of the representa- tive figure, at which puncture Wade stated that "in the long run the Union would hurt me. More than likely it would not benefit us. It would hurt us." On the basis of Joy Forsyth's uncontradicted testimony, I conclude that Respondent, by Supervisor Wade's threat made to her in March, and by his coercive interrogation of Forsyth regarding her union activities and those of her fel- low employees, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The General Counsel contends that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when, on or about March 19, Center Man- ager Constantine Gregory told the employees at the Deca- tur installation that they were forbidden to discuss the top- ic of unionization with their coworkers during nonwork time. The testimony which would be supportive of this alle- gation would have come from the lips of Stephanie Margo Rome, an employee of Respondent who, as chronicled hereinafter, was discriminatorily discharged on April 3. Rome was unavailable to the General Counsel as a witness in this proceeding, in consequence of which he sought to make "an offer of proof." In this "`offer," the General Counsel verbally recited that Rome had executed a union designation early in February and had actively embraced the Union's cause. During the week of March 10, Rome conversed with two new employees on her lunch break. At the conclusion of her repast, she was summoned to Super- visor Gregory's office where Gregory warned Rome that "he would not tolerate her speaking with any of his em- ployees about a union; that he would not have it," without defining either the times or places when and/or where this restriction would obtain. In light of the circumstances that, in its answer, Respon- dent denied this allegation of the complaint, and the Gen- eral Counsel did not support this allegation either by testi- mony, affidavits, or otherwise, I conclude that his "offer of proof" lacks the necessary evidentiary support to sustain this averment. I shall, therefore, dismiss the allegation from the complaint. I turn next to a consideration of the General Counsel's claim that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging Joy (Raffield) Forsyth, Lois Turner, Doris Davis, Phyllis Grambling, and Stephanie Margo Rome on April 3. As indicated above, Forsyth was the most active propo- nent of the Union at the Decatur center, a circumstance which was well known to Respondent's Supervisors Nor- man Stroud and Jerry Wade Thus, as heretofore found, she held a union meeting at her home on February 19 at which 19 of her coworkers attended. Thereafter, she at- tended several union meetings and passed out union au- thorization cards to employees at the regional credit center. The day after the February session at her apartment, Su- The consolidated complaint alleges that, on various dates in March 1975,2 Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following misconduct of Center Manager Constantine Gregory, Personnel Manager Carol Miller, Collection Supervisor Jerry Wade, and Customer Service Department Supervisor Marisabel Garcia, all of whom were supervisors and agents of Respondent within the pur- view of Section 2(11) of the Act: (1) On or about March 12, Collection Supervisor Wade threatened employees that they could be hurt if they participated in activities on be- half of the Union; (2) on or about March 19, Center Man- ager Gregory informed his employees that they would not be permitted to discuss the Union with fellow employees during the employees' nonworking time; (3) on or about March 12 and 19, Wade, Gregory, and Personnel Manager Miller coercively interrogated employees concerning their union activities and desires; and (4) on or about August 26, Customer Service Department Supervisor Garcia engaged in the surveillance of a union meeting attended by Respondent's employees. The consolidated complaint fur- ther alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act when, on April 3, it discharged employees Stephanie Rome, Lois Turner, Doris Davis, Phyllis Grumbling, and Joy (Raffield) Forsyth because of their membership in, and activities on behalf of, the Union, and because they en- gaged in protected concerted activities with other employ- ees for purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection. In its answer, Respondent denies the commission of any labor practices banned by the Act. Although Respondent filed an answer to the consolidat- ed complaint, it failed to make an appearance at the hear- ing through counsel or otherwise, and presented no evi- dence to controvert the testimony of the witnesses who were called to the stand by the General Counsel. Accord- ingly, that testimony is uncontradicted and I find the facts herein to be as those witnesses testimonially reported them. On two occasions during 1975, the Union launched or- ganizational campaigns at Respondent's credit collection and service centers in an effort to enlist the collective sup- port of its employees The first drive commenced in Febru- ary when Respondent's offices were located in Decatur, Georgia. The second occurred in August after Respondent moved its enterprise to East Point, Georgia. The General Counsel's pleadings assert that, on or about March 12, Collection Supervisor Jerry Wade threatened employees that they would suffer economic harm if they persisted in supporting the Union's organizational endeav- ors. In this connection, Joy Forsyth 3 testified and I find that a union meeting was conducted at the inception of its initial campaign in her apartment on February 19, and ap- proximately 19 employees attended. The following day, Group Supervisor Norman Stroud asked Forsyth's fiancee, who was also a supervisor at Respondent's Decatur estab- lishment, "how the Union meeting went the night before and he [Forsyth] said he didn't know, that he was not pres- 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates herein fall in 1975 3 At the time of the event in question, Forsyth was unmarried and her surname was Raffield W T GRANT REGIONAL CREDIT CENTER pervisor Stroud asked Forsyth's future husband, who was also a supervisor at the installation, how the union meeting had progressed, and mentioned that he, Stroud, believed that 25 individuals had been in attendance, a not complete- ly inaccurate number. A few weeks later, Supervisor Wade interrogated her as to how "[Mrs. Forsyth's] Union was going," and threatened her that "in the long run the Union would hurt me" as well as other employees. That Respondent's officialdom was fully apprised of the Union's interest in organizing the former's employees, and of Forsyth's and other employees' ardor for collective rep- resentation, is evidenced by two additional episodes which occurred following the February 19 affair. It is undisputed and I find, based on the testimony of Forsyth and dis- charged employee Lois Turner, that Thomas P. Tierney, Respondent's attorney, visited Respondent's establishment and addressed groups of employees on February 27 and 28. In Forsyth's words, "Mr. Tierney held a meeting with the whole center. It was divided for two different days .... The Union was discussed . . . [Tierney inquired] Why we felt we needed a Union, what reasons we had for thinking that we needed a Union." Turner's recount of Tierney's speech is to the effect that the latter "said he understood we were in Union activities there and he, well, actually, he said that he didn't see that the Union was going to benefit us in any way any more than any of the benefits we already had and a number of us did speak up and declare why we felt that we needed a Union." The second episode took place on March 21, on which date Forsyth appeared at the Board's offices as a witness for the Union where she encountered Attorney Tierney and Su- pervisor Gregory who represented Respondent in the pro- ceeding. Forsyth further testified that, on March 26, Gregory of- fered to elevate Forsyth to a supervisory position. It is her uncontroverted testimony and I find that she told Gregory "I would let him know." The following day, Forsyth re- ported for work and informed Gregory that "I didn't feel that I was qualified for it and also that I was on the com- mittee for the Union and he [Gregory] said that he didn't know anything about the Union and I told him that I had heard that he did. He said, yes, that he had heard about the Union." ° Despite the fact that Forsyth had previously been com- plimented by Center Manager Gregory regarding her work and had even received a $50 bonus for her performance of duty on or about March 26 or 27 she was told by Supervi- sor Conway on the morning of April 3 that she had re- ceived a pink slip for admittedly being 8 minutes late that morning and was therefore fired. It is undenied and I find that, although it was Respondent's announced policy to discharge employees who had received three disciplinary, pink slips, Forsyth had theretofore received only one, and that was on the morning of her termination. In sum, I conclude, on the basis of the foregoing, that ° Forsyth may have been mistaken in placing the offer of a supervisory job on March 26 and her refusal on March 27, in light of Supervisor Gregory's letter to her dated February 27 confirming her declination to assume the supervisor's position However, I do not deem this variance in dates critical to a decision herein 883 Respondent selected Forsyth for removal from its employ- ment rolls solely to rid itself of a known, active union sup- porter, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Lois Turner had worked for Respondent for approxi- mately 3 years prior to her discharge on April 3. Turner attended the union meeting convened at Forsyth' s apart- ment house on February 19, thereafter attended two other union gatherings at the Mark Inn in Decatur, distributed union authorization cards to approximately 10 fellow em- ployees at Respondent's center, and carpooled with For- syth and Phyllis Grumbling during her employment stint. Prior to the February meeting in Forsyth's home, Turner had been late for work about three times per month but, curiously, had never been reprimanded for these lapses. A week after the above-mentioned union conclave, Turner reported for work 15 minutes late, was called to her supervisor's office, and was handed a pink slip for her tar- diness, the first she had received in the 3 years of employ- ment with Respondent.' Indeed, Turner testified and I find that, before the Union meeting in February, she was un- aware of any instance in which an employee aad received a written reprimand for lateness in reporting for work. On the morning of April 3, Supervisor John Lane Cody came to Turner's desk and beckoned her to accompany him and Supervisor Conway to the rest area. Holding Turner's timecard in his hand, Conway advised Turner that she had been terminated. It is Turner' s undenied testi- mony and I find that it was Respondent's declared policy that employees would not be automatically discharged for tardiness unless and until they had received three pink slips. Turner had attended the union meeting at Forsyth's home on February 19 and, in addition to riding to work with this ardent union activist, Turner also vigorously sought to foster the presence of the Union in Respondent's establishment in Decatur, Georgia. I have heretofore found that Respondent knew of that union session, and I am con- vinced that it was also aware of Turner's ..ttendance threat as well as her activities in support of that labor organiza- tion. In short, I conclude that Respondent discharged Turner on April 3, not because of any pattern of tardiness, but because she was a known, active union advocate. By so doing, I conclude that Respondent viclated Section 8(a)(3) of the statute. Like Forsyth and Turner, Doris Davis had toiled for Re- spondent for 3 years before she lost her job at Respondent's center on April 3 for being late for duty. With the inception of the Union' s initial organizational campaign in February, Davis attended several union meet- ings and distributed union authorization cards to employ- ees in Respondent's parking lot. Davis reported late for work on February 27, and Supervisor Stroud, who knew of the union meeting at Forsyth's home on February 19, gave her a pink slip for tardiness.6 On this occasion, Stroud ex- plained Respondent's policy of automatically terminating 5 Turner testified and I find that employee Debbie Lawrence, who, so far as this record stands, was not identified with the Union's organizational efforts, had been tardy on a number of occasions after the February 19 union meeting and had not been officially cautioned by her supervisors 611 Is undisputed and I find that, prior to the February meeting, Davis had been late for work but had never been reprimanded for this dereliction 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tardy employees who had received three pink slips. On April 3, Davis was 6 minutes late for work and, when she arrived at the center, she was summoned to the office, in- formed that she was discharged, and given her paycheck and vacation pay, which were already drafted, although she had not been given three disciplinary slips at this point. On the record before me, I find and conclude that Davis was severed from Respondent's personnel staff on April 3 because she had joined and assisted the Union and not due to tardiness. I therefore conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by terminating Davis. Phyllis Grambling had worked for Respondent for 3 years prior to her discharge on April 3 She attended the union session at Forsyth's apartment on February 19, and thereafter sought to enlist the union membership of other employees during conversations with them in the employ- ees' break area or ladies' lounge at the center, and distrib- uted union cards. In addition, Grambling rode to and from work with Forsyth and Turner. On or about February 27, Grambling was late for work, and Supervisor Stroud gave her a pink slip for this tardi- ness, although it is uncontroverted and I find that she had never been disciplined for at least six incidents of lateness prior to the advent of the Union On April 3, Grambling was 9 minutes tardy for duty. Supervisor Cody escorted her to the break area and informed her that she was being terminated for this lateness. In light of the record facts, I deem Grambling's dis- charge to be statutorily discriminatory. This employee had been an active union supporter. She had been late for work on at least six occasions prior to the Union's organizational drive and had never been reprimanded for these absences. That Grambling was a superior employee is evidenced by her undenied testimony that, approximately 3 weeks before her discharge, Supervisor Cody, who had terminated her on April 3, informed her that he had been considering making her a supervisor. Moreover, although Respondent's policy provided for automatic termination after the receipt of three pink slips, Grambling's personnel file had not achieved that level when she was separated from Respondent's employ. Accordingly, I conclude that Re- spondent discharged Grambling because of her activities on behalf of the Union and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Stephanie Margo Rome was also discharged on April 3. As chronicled above, Rome was not available as a witness on behalf of the General Counsel in consequence of which, in the absence of her testimony, he made an "offer of proof." While I have heretofore found that the offer was evidentially insufficient to establish that Center Manager Gregory violated Section 8(a)(1) on or about March 19 by his statements to Rome because it was not supported by testimony, affidavits, or otherwise, I find no such infirmity with the offer as it relates to the alleged discriminatory discharge of Rome. In his offer on this score, the General Counsel recited that, if Rome had been called to the stand, she would have testified: That she signed a union authorization card for the union in the early part of February, 1975. That, she attended several of the union meetings. That she asked other employees at the credit center to sign union au- thorization cards and that she talked to other employ- ees regarding their signing cards. . . She would testify further that two days after attending her first union meeting on February 19 at Miss Joy Raffield's [For- syth's] home that she received a pink slip for being late That the next time she was warned about tardi- ness was on the day of her discharge, April 3, 1975. That the policy of the company was that when . . . that one was required to receive three pink slips prior to being discharged. And, that prior to the first union meeting many employees had been late, but the com- pany had never said anything about it. She would also name other employees who were late as often as she and other 8(3)'s alleged in the complaint, but had nev- er received a pink slip including one employee by the name of Linda Denmark. When summoned as a witness by the General Counsel, Lois Turner testified without contradiction and I find that she had observed Rome participate in a variety of union activities prior to her discharge such as attending the union meeting at Forsyth's apartment on February 19 and other meetings, and distributing union designation cards to other employees. Turner recalled that, about 2 weeks prior to Rome's termination on April 3 for tardiness, Rome had passed out some authorization cards to employees during her break period, in consequence of which "Mr. Gregory called her into his office because Mrs. Miller, Mrs. Carol Miller, had seen her passing cards to some employees. He said at that time that he did not want her to bother the new employees, to keep her Union away from them. He didn't want her approaching them." In view of Turner's testimony detailed above, which is undenied, I conclude that Respondent winnowed out Rome for discharge on April 3 because of her union activi- ties and that, by this conduct, violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act The consolidated complaint alleges that, on August 26, Respondent engaged in the unlawful surveillance of its em- ployees' union activities by the conduct of Customer Ser- vice Department Supervisor Marisabel (Marcia) Garcia. I find that, on August 22, the Union distributed a leaflet to Respondent's employees which announced: There will be a Union meeting for all employees of W.T. Grant, Tuesday, August 26, 1975, at the Mark Inn, Sylvan Road, Room, 300-A. The purpose of this meeting is to bring you up to date on your organizing campaign. The circular concluded with the exhortation that "This meeting is important to each of you, please attend." Ruth G. Johnson, who had been employed by Respon- dent for almost 7 years, testified and I find that the union meeting took place on August 26 as scheduled, and that Johnson attended the session. Her testimony in undenied and I find that Supervisor Garcia, who was known to John- son as a statutory supervisor, appeared at the conclave and was observed taking notes of the proceedings. By the foregoing conduct of Garcia, I conclude that the W. T. GRANT REGIONAL CREDIT CENTER Respondent engaged in illegal surveillance of its employ- ees' union activities and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY I have found that Respondent has interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the statute. I shall there- fore order that Respondent cease and desist therefrom. I have also found that Respondent discharged Joy (Raf- field) Forsyth, Lois Turner, Doris Davis, Phyllis Gram- bling, and Stephanie Margo Rome on April 3, because they joined and actively assisted the Union in its attempt to gain exclusive representative status at Respondent's business operations in Decatur, Georgia, and thereby offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act To remedy these violations, I shall recommend that Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay which they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them. The backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accor- dance with the Board's formula set forth in F W Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum in the manner pre- scribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Inasmuch as Respondent is in the process of liqui- dating all of its assets and has ceased functioning as a busi- ness entity, and due to the lack of General Counsel's urg- ing, I shall not order Respondent to reinstate the discriminatees to their former positions. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con- clusions, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 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 Joy (Raffield) Forsyth, Lois Turner, Doris Davis, Phyllis Grambling, and Stephanie Margo Rome, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to discourage their adher- ence to and activities on behalf of the Union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of 885 the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the purview of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER7 Respondent, W.T. Grant Regional Credit Center, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging employees, thereby discriminating in re- gard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to discourage their engagement in union activities. (b) Threatening employees with reprisals if they join and assist the Union. (c) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their engagement in union activities or the engagement of their fellow employees in such activities. (d) Engaging in the surveillance of the union activities of its employees. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Make whole Joy (Raffield) Forsyth, Lois Turner, Doris Davis, Phyllis Grambling, and Stephanie Margo Rome for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due herein (c) Mail to the discriminatees found herein copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said no- tice shall be provided by the Regional Director for Region 10 and mailed by Respondent to the last known addresses of the named discriminatees. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. r 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 deemed waived for all purposes 8 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 " 886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed as to those allegations not specifically found herein. PPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge our employees, thereby dis- criminating in regard to their hire and tenure of em- ployment, in order to discourage their engagement in union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals for joining or assisting the Union. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees regarding their engagement in union activities or the engagement of their fellow employees in such activi- ties. WE WILL NOT engage in the surveillance of the union activities of our employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL make whole Joy (Raffield) Forsyth, Lois Turner, Doris Davis, Phyllis Grambling, and Stepha- nie Rome for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of any labor orga- nization. W. T. GRANT REGIONAL CREDIT CENTER