Extract
Dayton Hudson Corp., 477 (1995)
Department Store Division of the Dayton Hudson
Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-32279, 7-CA-32433, and 7-CA- 33871February 24, 1995DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS BROWNING, COHEN, AND TRUESDALEOn August 3, 1994, Administrative Law Judge Irwin H. Socoloff issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an answering brief to the Respond-ent's exceptions and cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. The Charging Party filed an answer to the Respondent's exceptions and a supporting brief and cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. The Respondent filed an answering brief to the Charging Party's cross-exceptions and to both the Charging Party's and the General Counsel's answers to the Respondent's exceptions.The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,1 and con- clusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. Department Store Division of the Dayton Hudson Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce, and in operations affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By issuing reprimands to Leonard Militello Jr. on July 18 and 26, 1991, and to Vivian Armstrong on July 31, 1991, because of their union activities, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practice conduct within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By threatening employees with store closure, store relocation, loss of jobs, bumping from jobs, and more onerous working conditions if they select the Union to represent them, and by informing employees that it would be futile for them to select union representation, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practice conduct within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By denouncing and humiliating an employee in the presence of other employees, by harassing an employee and threatening his physical safety, and by screaming vulgarities at a union organizer and threatening violence against her in the presence of employees, because of employee support for the Union, the1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.The Respondent has also excepted to the judge's finding that it engaged in unlawful surveillance. The Respondent argues that it merely recorded the activity of employees who were in the company of professional union organizers when the organizers were inside the Respondent's store, thereby engaging in incidental surveillance of employees during lawful surveillance of nonemployees. The Respond-ent's argument is devoid of merit. The judge found that the Respondent engaged in unlawful surveillance by videotaping employee movements and actions, watching and following employees, and interrupting their conversations and monitoring their telephone calls. The judge cites credited testimony supporting this finding involving multiple employees on multiple occasions. Moreover, among these numerous incidents, there are only two which hint at the conjunction of professional union organizers with employees and activity inside the Respondent's store. Thus, Ray Lichy credibly testified that, during the last week in July 1991, the Respondent videotaped employees and professional union organizers leafletting at the employee entrance to the store. When a small group entered the store, they were filmed by Brenda McNamara, the store's security manager. Lichy did not specify whether the group which entered the store was the same as the group leafletting at the employee entrance. Similarly, Lindel Salow credibly testified that, shortly before the second election, the Respondent videotaped him at his work station in the men's fragrance department. Then within an hour, the Respondent videotaped Salow again as he waited on two customers who were wearing jackets with un...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
