Mademoiselle Shoppe, Inc., 983 (1972)

Extract

---

Mademoiselle Shoppe, Inc., 983 (1972)

MADEMOLSELLE SHOPPE, INC.

Mademoiselle Shoppe, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union,

Local 1460, Retail Clerks International Association,

AFL-CIO Mademoiselle Shoppe, Inc., Mason Shoe Company, and Retail Clerks Union, Local 1460, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.

Cases 13-CA-10929 and 13-RC-12488

October 24, 1972

DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION

BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND

KENNEDY

On June 6, 1972, and June 28, 1972, respectively,

Administrative Law Judge' John F. Funke issued the attached Decision and the attached Supplemental Decision and Report on Challenged Ballots in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Mademoiselle Shoppe, Inc., Respondent Mason Shoe Company, and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Respondent Mademoiselle Shoppe, Inc., also filed a brief in answer to the General Counsel's exceptions.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision and Supplemental Decision and Report on Challenged Ballots 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 and Supplemental Recommended Order2 with the following modifications.

1. The Administrative Law Judge failed to make any findings with regard to allegations of unlawful employee interrogation and the creation of an impression of surveillance contained in paragraph 7(i) of the complaint. He erroneously assumed that these allegations related to the testimony of either Katie Abrams i The title of 'Trial Examiner' was changed to 'Administrative Law Judge' effective August 19, 1972

2 The Administrative Law Judge made certain inadvertent errors in his Decision and Supplemental Recommended Order, which are corrected as followsIn the Administrative Law Judge's Decision p. 3,1.33, change '13-CA12488' to '13-RC-12488', p. 5, I. 15, change '8(f)' to '7(f)'; p 13, 1. 2, change 'April' to 'December 1970 ' 983 or Dorothy Foster, upon which he had already made findings, and apparently concluded that further findings based upon the same testimony would be cumulative. The record indicates, however, that paragraph 7(i) actually relates to testimony presented by Beatrice Shreve wherein she recalled being approached by President Alfred Kovach and being asked, in apparent reference to her execution of a union authorization card, 'Why did you sign?' 3 In our view,

Kovach's inquiry, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, constitutes employee interrogation and the creation of an impression of surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In all other respects, we affirm the findings of the Administrative Law Judge with respect to the 8(a)(1) allegations in the complaint.

2. While we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Emily Ortega was discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3), we find his ...

See the full content of this document

---