Karoll's Pants-A-Plenty, Inc.

582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Karoll's Pants-A-Plenty, Inc. and Retail Store Em- ployees Union, Local 1453, Retail Clerks Interna- tional Association, AFL-CIO. Cases 13-CA-12880 and 13-RC-13199 December 13, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY Union's objections to conduct affecting the results of the representation election with the aforesaid unfair labor prac- tice proceeding for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges violation by the Respondent of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act The Respondent filed an answer denying the commis- sion of unfair labor practices The Union's objections to con- duct affecting the results of the election alleged conduct which are also the subject of the unfair labor practice charges, and would constitute grounds for setting aside the election. On July 29, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Julius Cohn issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent-Employer filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. 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 briefs 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 Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Karoll's Pants-A-Plenty, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. For the reasons set forth in his concurring and dissenting opinion in Steel-Fab, Inc, 212 NLRB 363 (1974), Member Jenkins would find a viola- tion of Sec 8(a)(5) as well as entering a bargaining order DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JULIUS COHN, Administrative Law Judge: The consolidated hearing in these cases was held in Chicago, Illinois, on Mal 8 and 9, 1974, based upon unfair labor practice charges filed by the Union on December 14, 1973, and upon objections to conduct affecting the results of a representation election timely filed on December 6, 1973 A complaint issued in the unfair labor practice proceeding on March 19, 1974, on be- half of the General Counsel by the Regional Director for Region 21. The representation petition was filed on October 5, 1973, and an election was conducted on November 30 pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated Octo- _ ber 29, 1973. At the election six votes were cast against the Union and none for the Union. On March 19, 1974, the Regional Director also issued an order consolidating the Issues Whether Respondent by its agent and supervisor violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully: (a) interrogating its employees, (b) threatening to reduce the hours of their em- ployment, to take away certain benefits, to limit wage in- creases, and to discharge certain employees; (c) promising higher pay increases and additional hours, and (d) granting promotions and wages increases. Whether the unfair labor practices which may be found are such as to preclude the conduct of a fair election and require the issuance of a bargaining order. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally and to file briefs. The General Counsel, Respondent, and Charging Party submitted briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record of the case, and from my observa- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Karoll's Pants-A-Plenty, Inc., the Respondent,' is an Il- linois corporation, engaged in the retail sale of pants and accessories at various stores in the Chicago, Illinois, area. In the course of its operations during the past 12 months, Re- spondent received revenues from the retail sale of its products in excess of $500,000 and also received goods valued at more than $10,000 from points outside the State of Illinois which were shipped directly to its facilities within that State. I find Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION- INVOLVED Retail Store Employees' Union, Local 1453, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. The name of the Respondent-Employer appears as amended at the hearing 215 NLRB No. 111 KAROLL'S PANTS-A-PLENTY, INC III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Allegations that the Respondent Violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 1. Background The Respondent operates a number of retail stores in the metropolitan Chicago area selling pants and other female apparel and accessories. Its Hillcrest Shopping Center store in Joliet is the sole store involved in this proceeding. At Hillcrest Respondent employed seven employees' and a store manager (Philip Gallo), during the period of the events to be described. Of the seven unit employees, five were high school students who worked part-time and two, Nancy Wil- liams and Ellen Adamic Mattox, were full-time. The Union initiated its organizational drive with the recruitment of Nancy Williams on September 5, 1973, who by September 17, had obtained signed authorization cards from the other six employees. On October 2 the Union wrote requesting recog- nition, a letter which Respondent acknowledged receiving on October 3. Thereafter on October 5, the Union filed a petition for representation election. Upon receipt of the Union's demand for recognition, top management of Respondent called into the office the district manager, George Yambnsak, to discuss the matter. As it appeared that Yambrisak was unaware of the Union's activi- ties, he was advised to visit the store to ascertain what the employees wanted and "keep them informed as to what their rights are." Yambrisak was district manager with responsibil- ity for seven stores, having been employed in that capacity since June 15, 1973. His status and activities after the Union's demand are the subject of this case. 2. The status of George Yambnsak According to Executive Vice President Saitlin, Yambnsak, as district manager, was the overseer of seven stores including the Hillcrest store here involved. His duties were to go around to the stores, discuss with the store manager their needs and problems, make certain the stores are kept orderly, that there is merchandise to sell, sufficient help, and report his needs to company officials if their assistance is required. Store manag- ers are responsible to the district manager who has authority to hire and discharge employees; the store manager's au- thority in this area is limited to emergency action regarding part-timers. Wage increases and promotions are granted by the district manager. He also makes recommendations con- cerning appointment or discharge of store managers. Yambrisak spent about half his time in the Company office and the other half visiting the seven stores. The timing of these visits was at his own discretion; upon occasion he would be instructed to visit a particular store where there may, have been a problem. Yambrisak was employed as district manager from June 15 to December 31, 1973, when he was terminated by letter of that date, having failed to appear since December 20 3 It is 2 The parties stipulated to a unit of all regular full-time and part-time employees employed at Hillcrest They further stipulated that the following seven employees comprised the unit Nancy Williams, Ellen Adamic Mat- tox, Diane Flores, Maureen Whitmer, Debbie Hester, Naomi Wilker and Tina Kennedy 583 clear from the foregoing that Yambrisak was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and an agent of Respondent acting on its behalf within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act and I so,find. 3 The alleged threats Preliminarily it must be noted that the testimony is uncon- tradicted that from early October to November 30, 1973, the date of election, Yambnsak visited and was present at the Hillcrest store constantly. The witnesses testified they saw him four or five times a week and that he most often remained until the store closed. During that period of almost 2 months he talked to the employees about the Union as much as several times a week. Prior to October, he was seen by some employees only once or twice in total and after November 30, about once a week. As indicated the part-time employees who testified (Hes- ter, Flores, Wilker and Kennedy) were high school students. They were, of course, young, some timid and shy, but all properly respectful and serious. I found these witnesses to be credible. Their testimony was on the whole consistent and supportive of one another Although in one or two areas, such as the threat to cut commissions, there appeared to be a discrepancy between the testimony of two witnesses, I believe this to be due to either their immaturity in understanding fine distinctions or the fact that Yambrisak discussed these mat- ters on more than one occasion with each of them individu- ally, rather than a lack of credibility Early in October, Diane Flores reported to work in the afternoon and Yambrisak called her to the back of the store where he began to talk to her about the Union. At the time the part-time sales clerks were working between 17-22 hours a week. Yambrisak told Flores that if the Union got in she would only be getting 12 hours. This was of particular signifi- cance to Flores because she was in a work program at school which required her to work 15 hours a week to obtain credits. She mentioned this to Yambrisak who replied that her hours would be cut. Debbie Hester came in about 5 p.m. that day and joined Flores and Yambrisak at the back of the store. Hester was brought up to date as to the conversation. In sum, Yambrisak told them that the hours of the part-timers would be cut to 12; that the three girls with least seniority (Hester, Flores and Kennedy) would be laid off. He further told them that if the Company had to negotiate with the Union; any increase would be limited to a dime, that they would have to strike to get more and that the Company would then go out of business and close the store. According to Hester and Flores, Yambnsak said their commissions (1 percent of sales) would be taken away. In addition Yambrisak told Hester that the Company would start a system of recording their mis- takes and an employee would be fired if three things were done wrong. He told Flores on one occasion that the Com- pany would be a lot more strict; e.g., she would not be able to smoke a cigarette in the back. Hester and Flores testified that Yambrisak repeated these remarks many times between early October and November 30. 3 Yambrisak and Nancy Williams did not testify at the hearing, their whereabouts being unknown It appears that he and Williams, the erstwhile union protagonist , were enacting their own labor relations adaptation of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Naomi Wilker, a bright young lady, who responded di- rectly and in a forthright, logical manner, impressed me as a very credible witness. Indeed her testimony, after cross- examination, was unshaken and remains uncontradicted in this record. Wilker, during the period in question, was work- ing 27 to 30 hours a week, sometimes from 12 to 5 p.m.° and other times from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. Early in October, Wilker had a conversation with Yam- bnsak about the Union. Her account is as follows: Q. Where did this conversation take place? A. In the back of the store. Q. How did you happen to take part in this conversa- tion? A. George was already at the store when I came into work, and when I went in the back room to put my things away he told me he wanted to talk to me about the union. Q. What did he say, if anything, about the union? A He told me that if the union got in we would get no more than 12 hours a week. He said that the union could give us no more than a nickel or a dime raise, and he said that the only ones that would benefit from the union would be Ellen Mattox and Nancy Williams, be- cause they were working-they were like full-time, and that it wouldn't benefit any part-time, and he said that we wouldn't get any commission because if we,got a raise that the store would take away our commission, and he said that Maureen Whitmer and I didn't have anything to worry about because we were the first two girls there, but the last three girls would be laid off. He spoke to Wilker during the daytime and said "if the Union gets in because you are part-time you will have to work at night." Wilker stated that Yambrisak spoke to her several times on the subject. She insisted that he always prefaced his remarks by saying "if the Union won . . . ." She denied that he said whatever happened would be determined by collective bar- gaining. In similar vein , Yambrisak spoke to Tina Kennedy at the back of the store when she came to work one evening early in October He also told her that the hours of part-timers would be cut to 12 hours per week, commission would be cut, part-time help could only work at night, the last three girls with the least seniority would be laid off or fired, and a raise would be limited to 5 or 10 cents, if the Union got in. Kennedy testified that she worked approximately 15 hours a week during the October through November period. The foregoing testimony by the four employees is uncon- troverted and I have already stated that I found these wit- nesses to be credible. As noted Yambrisak was unavailable and did not testify and counsel for Respondent sought on cross-examination to elicit admissions to the effect that Yam- brisak had indicated that the matters here alleged as unlawful threats would be merely normal consequences of collective bargaining . While a seniority provision may provide for the least senior employee to be laid off in the event of an eco- It is clear from the testimony of several of the employees that they preferred to work in the afternoon immediately after they concluded their school day nomic layoff, that was not the tenor of Yambnsak's remarks, according to these witnesses. He told them all that the least senior three employees would be laid off should the Union win the election. Yambrisak did not indicate how the eco- nomic result of collective bargaining would require the layoff of three employees. Nor does Respondent suggest how the ensuing collective bargaining would cause the hours of part- time employees to be cut to 12, or that a strike to obtain more than a 5 cent raise would lead inevitably to.the shutdown of the stores. He even threatened more onerous working condi- tions such as recording of mistakes and not permitting smok- ing. The message of Yambnsak to these unsophisticated em- ployees was quite clear-dire consequences would result unless they abandoned the Union. I find, therefore, that Respondent through its agent Yam- brisak, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening its employees with a loss of hours,' layoff of three least senior part-time employees,' cut in commissions, preventing part- time employees from working daytime hours, more onerous working conditions,' limitation of wage increase to 5 or 10 cents, and shutdown of the store in event of a strike,' unless they voted against the Union. 4. The alleged interrogation General Counsel alleges that Yambrisak interrogated em- ployees Hester and Whitmer. Although I find no evidence that he spoke to Whitmer on the subject of the election, Ellen Mattox, a witness for Respondent, testified that Yambrisak asked employee Naomi Wilker how she was going to vote in the election, and the record clearly shows that Yambrisak asked Hester the same question He queried Hester at the time he made the threats found to be violative of the Act. In view of the sudden appearance of Yambrisak, the district manager, and the context in which he spoke, such interroga- tion was coercive and Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The promises of benefits Debbie Hester testified without contradiction that Yam- brisak told her that as soon as the election was over and they voted no, he would get them a raise. Yambrisak also asked Flores what hours she would like to work and when she said 1:00 to 6:00 p.m., he changed her schedule accordingly and then said "if the Union got in you wouldn't be able to work these hours." Although he did not actually change Flores' existing working schedule, his statement inferred she would receive the schedule she wanted only if the Union lost. The Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promising Hester that wages would be increased and Flores a favorable work schedule. 5 Diamond International Corporation, 206 NLRB 828 (1973) 6 Butler's Shoe Corporation, a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Zale Corporation, 208 NLRB 404 (1974) 7 Brown Specialty Company, 180 NLRB 969 (1969) 8 Glacier Packing Co, Inc, 204 NLRB 597 (1973) KAROLL'S PANTS-A-PLENTY, INC 585 6. The promotions and wage increases At the hearing the complaint was amended to allege that Respondent granted wage increases and promotions to unit employees in order to discourage membership in the Union. Respondent's own witnesses testified that early in October 1973, the two full-time employees in the unit, Ellen Adamic Mattox and Nancy Williams were promoted to assistant managers and each received wage increases. Gallo, the store manager since August or September 1973, had previously held the post of assistant, and the assistantship was vacant for at least a month or two. Mattox, who testified that she had been earning $1.90 per hour and 1 percent commission on her sales, was increased to $115 per week and 1 percent commis- sion of the total sales of the store. Nancy Williams received the same increases. The Respondent's explanation was that it was (a) filling a vacant position and (b) appointing two people to one job with a view of transferring one to another store. Respondent's vice president also stated "that we felt it would be in good taste as far as the individuals were concerned to make them both assistant manager . . ," and that they were equally qualified and had the same tenure. I cannot credit this explanation. The post had been left open for 1 or 2 months prior to the Union's advent but was doubly filled immediately thereafter. Mattox and Williams were the only full-time em- ployees in the unit, and their promotions created a hierarchy one store manager, two assistant managers and five part- timers. Both received sizable increases, particularly as to commissions, and this was the first time two assistant manag- ers were appointed for one store, and they were the first females to be appointed to that position Their additional duties were minimal and even if management was grooming one for another store, she could easily have been instructed while still in her previous classification. Williams also had been the union protagonist, a fact obviously well known to Yambrisak. I can find no justification for this double promo- tion during the union campaign and conclude that Respond- ent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promoting Mattox and Williams and giving them substantial wage increases in order to discourage their support of the Union.9 B The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(5) 1. The Union's majority status The parties stipulated that there were seven employees in the appropriate unit10 at the time of the Union's demand for recognition. All seven had signed authorization cards for the Union, of whom six testified at the hearing and authenticated their own cards. The card of the seventh employee, the absent Nancy Williams, was authenticated by a business agent of the 9 In the representation proceeding, their status was litigated and the Regional Director determined that the assistant managers were unit em- ployees and not supervisors within the meaning of the Act No one has asserted otherwise in this proceeding and it is quite clear from this record they possess no supervisory authority Indeed, the store manager himself was the last to know of their promotion, the employees having been directly informed by Yambrisak 10 In the representation proceeding the parties also stipulated and the Regional Director found the appropriate unit to consist of all regular full- time and part-time employees employed at the Employer's store located at the Hillcrest Shopping Center Union who had witnessed her signature. The cards author- ized the Union to represent the employees in collective bar- gaining, and were received in evidence without objection Some of the employees who signed authorization cards also received a card from the Union waiving payment of initiation fees. Respondent contends that under the reasoning of N.L.R.B. v Savair Manufacturing Co., 414 U S 270 (19,73), a union who "buys endorsements" should not be entitled to a bargaining order In Savair, the Supreme Court held that, in certain circumstances such as where the waiver was availa- ble only to those who join before the election, such conduct by the Union interferes with the employees' right of free choice An election won by the Union which obtained cards in that manner would therefore be set aside. Here the Em- ployer, not the Union, won the election. In any event, there is no evidence in this case that the Union obtained authoriza- tion cards as a result of an offer to waive fees. There is solely testimony to the effect that after signing an authorization card, some employees received a card from the Union which certified that initiation fees are waived. The waiver card itself provides that initiation fees will not be required until a collec- tive-bargaining agreement has been signed Thus, on its face the offer would be open to all employees who joined before or after an election. Since Savair, the Board has held that a waiver available to all eligible voters, optionable before or after the election, was clearly not conditioned upon the ex- pression of support for the Union in any form during the electoral process " Accordingly I find that assuming, ar- guendo, an extension of the Savair doctrine to bargaining orders, none of the authorization cards in this case were tainted by any considerations in connection with the Union's policy of waiving initiation fees 2. The refusal to bargain Upon the basis of the foregoing and the nature and extent of the Respondent's unfair labor practices which cannot be cured by traditional remedies, a bargaining order in accord- ance with the doctrine of N.L R.B. v Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U S. 575 (1969) is the only effective remedy Thus, immediately upon receipt of the Union's demand for recogni- tion, Respondent's officials dispatched Yambrisak, the dis- trict manager, to the Hillcrest store Yambrisak, theretofore seen only once or twice by the employees despite his incum- bency of several months, proceeded to spend 5 days and nights each week at the premises for a period of almost 2 months prior to the election He then engaged in a constant campaign to undermine the Union's status. In a unit of seven, he threatened the three least senior employees with layoff if the Union won the election He promoted the only two full- time employees and gave them immediate substantial wage increases Needless to say he spoke to every employee, threat- ening the loss of benefits such as commissions and that the store will be closed down in the event of a strike The Board has made it clear that threats to layoff or discharge employees (three of seven in this case), and indeed, ultimately closure of the store are of such gravity as to render a reliable election 11 Endless Mold, Inc, 210 NLRB 159 (1974) 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unlikely." I conclude and shall recommend that the Re- spondent be directed to bargain with the Union. In a recent case, Steel-Fab, Inc., 212 NLRB 363 (1974), has held and stated as follows: Under Gissel, to determine whether or not a bargaining order should issue as part of the remedy, we evaluate the seriousness of the employer's misconduct and its impact on the holding of a fair election (or rerun election). In effect, by issuing a bargaining order, we are remedying an employer's 8(a)(1) violations that have dissipated a union's majority and prevented the holding of a fair election. It serves no real purpose to find additionally a violation of Section 8(a)(5). The Board went on to say that it will dispense with finding an 8(a)(5) violation in these situations. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the 8(a)(5) allegation of the complaint be dismissed but will include a bargaining order as part of the recommended remedy. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth` in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, inti- mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act 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 coercively interrogating employees concerning union activities, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed to them by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4 By threatening employees with economic reprisals, in cluding closing the store, laying off the least senior em- ployees, and more onerous working conditions if the em- ployees supported the Union, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By promoting employees and granting wage increases to induce them to reject the Union, and further promising wage increases to all employees should the Union lose the election, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 12 Genera/ Stencils, Inc, 195 NLRB 1109 (1972) See also fn 7 at 1111, where the Board stated it was inappropriate to consider employee turnover, a contention raised by Respondent herein 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER" Karoll's Pants-A-Plenty, Inc , its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their activities on behalf of Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1453, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other union. (b) Threatening employees with economic reprisals, in- cluding the closing of the store, laying off the least senior employees, and more onerous working conditions if the em- ployees support the above-named Union. (c) Promoting employees and granting wage increases to induce them to reject the Union; and promising wage in- creases to all employees should the Union lose the election (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, recognize and bargain with Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1453, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining represen- tative of the employees in a unit of all regular full-time and part-time employees employed at the Employer's store located at the Hillcrest Shopping Center, Joliet, Illinois, ex- cluding the manager and all supervisors and guards as de- fined in the Act, respecting rates of pay, wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment and, if an under- standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its Joliet, Illinois, store, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."14 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not, altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, 17 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 by 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 14 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 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 " KAROLL'S PANTS-A-PLENTY, INC. 587 within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed in- sofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on November 30, 1973, in Case 13-RC-13199, be set aside, that the petition therein be dismissed, and that the proceeding in Case 13-RC-13199 be vacated APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which all sides were represented by their attorneys and presented evidence , it has been found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act in certain respects To correct and remedy these violations, we have been directed to take certain actions and to post this notice. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with economic re- prisals, including the closing of the store, laying off the least senior employees, and more onerous working con- ditions, if the employees support a union WE WILL NOT promote employees, and grant or prom- ise them wage increases to induce employees to reject a union WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Retail Store Em- ployees Union, Local 1453, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All regular full-time and part-time employees em- ployed at our Hillcrest Shopping Center, Joliet, Il- linois, store, excluding the manager and all supervi- sors and guards as defined in the Act WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with the rights of our employees under the law to organize and/ or bargain collectively through that Union or any other labor organization, or to refrain from such activities. KAROLL'S PANTS-A-PLENTY, INC.