Shopper's Fair, 1604 (1965)

activity, and (e ) offering inducements to discourage adherence to or activity for the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the contemplation of Section 8 (a)( 1) of the Act.

4. Said unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

5. Respondent has not committed any other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.

   [Recommended Order omitted from publication ] Shopper's Fair i (Superior Sales, Inc.) and Retail Clerks Union,

   Local 483, AFL-CIO, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO. Case No. 17-CA-24170. April 13, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER

   On January 28, 1965, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision, and a supporting brief.

   Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].

   The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.

   The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.2 ORDER

   Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom1 As corrected at the hearing.

   2 In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's recommended dismissal of certain of the allegations of unfair labor practices under Section 8(a) (1) of the Act In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, we find it unnecessary to, and therefore do not , decide whether we would conclude as he did, that even without the Section 8(a) (1) and ( 3) violations , Respondent violated Section 8 ( a) (5) of the Act. Rather, we find only that, in the totality of circumstances in this case, including the background of our finding of Section 8(a) (1) and (3 ) violations, Respondent has violated Section 8 ( a)(5) of the Act.

   151 NLRB No. 155.

   SHOPPER'S FAIR (SUPERIOR SALES, INC.) 1605 mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, Superior Sales, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.

   TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

   Upon a charge filed June 18, 1964, by Retail Clerks Union, Local 483, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the Local), affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the Union), the complaint herein was issued August 19, 1964. Such complaint, as amended during the course of the hearing,' alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Inasmuch as the legal entity responding to the complaint was Superior Sales, Inc., references in this Decision to the Respondent or Company are to said corporation. Although the answer to the complaint was in the name of Shopper's Fair 2 as a corporation, Respondent apparently was merely following the form of the complaint. Respondent, in its answer as amended during the hearing,3 denied that it committed the unfair labor practices alleged.4 Respondent, in its answer, also denied the allegation that on May 27, 1964, the Union was the majority representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.

   Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert on September 22, 1964. At the close of the hearing oral argument was waived. Within the time set therefor briefs were submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent.

   Upon the entire record herein, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:

   FINDINGS OF FACT

1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Superior Sales, Inc., a Nebraska corporation, maintains a store under the name of Shopper's Fair at Fremont, Nebraska, where it engages in the retail sale of sundry merchandise. In the course and conduct of its operation of said store, Respondent annually sells and distributes merchandise of a gross value exceeding $500,000 and annually purchases merchandise of a value exceeding $50,000 directly from sources outside the State of Nebraska. As is conceded by Respondent, it is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

   2. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED As is conceded by the Respondent, the Union is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

      'Paragraph VIII(b) of the complaint was amended to add an allegation of a threat by one Elsie Greenwood, assistant manager. After the motion to so amend was granted, the allegation was dismissed by the Trial Examiner based upon an offer of proof by the General Counsel from which it was concluded that the evidence would not sustain said allegation. Said paragraph VIII(b) was also amended to add the additional date of September 15, 1964, with respect to conduct by Irvin C Levin. Further, the date of May 30, 1964, which appears in paragraph VIII(b) and (c) of the complaint was changed to June 2, 1964

      2 This case was originally titled 'Shopper's Fair, Inc. (Superior Sales, Inc ' It appears however, that name Shopper's Fair is not that of a corporation but is merely a registered trade name for the store involved in this proceeding which is located in Fremont, Nebraska, and is owned, among other stores, by Superior Sales, Inc Therefore, the title of the case is corrected by the deletion of 'Inc ' after the name 'Shopper's Fair,' and the name of Respondent is designated herein as Superior Sales, Inc 3 Respondent was given leave to amend its answer to paragraphs I, II, and III of the complaint by admitting the allegations in said paragraphs.

      4 Although by its answer Respondent denied the allegation of paragraph IV of the complaint as to the appropriate bargaining unit, a stipulation was entered into by the parties of the appropriate bargaining unit (which is set forth hereinbelow).

   3. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Summary of Events The facts set forth in this subsection are not in dispute unless otherwise indicated.

      On Wednesday, May 27, Edwin H. Arnold , a representative of the Union , accompanied by an officer of the Local, called upon Samuel D. Goodman , president of Superior Sales, Inc., at his office in Omaha, Nebraska In the course of his conversation with Goodman, Arnold stated that the Union represented the majority of the employees in Shopper's Fair (hereinafter also referred to as the store ) and requested that it be recognized as the collective -bargaining representative of the employees at said store. Goodman indicated his lack of knowledge of labor-management matters and asked for an explanation . Arnold explained to him that, inasmuch as the Union represented a majority of the employees , the Union was requesting a check of the authorization cards to verify its claim of majority representation . He further explained that the Union could be recognized either by making a card check or by a representation election. Goodman indicated that he still did not understand the procedures and that he would have to confer with an attorney . Arnold asked Goodman to have his attorney 'contact' him at the Union's office and gave him his business card.

      On that same day, May 27 , 1964, Goodman retained Irvin C. Levin, counsel for Respondent in this proceeding. Later in the day, Goodman and Levin went to the store in Fremont, Nebraska. While at the store, Levin engaged in conversations with employee Mildred Umshler and with the store manager , James L. Morris. The testimony with regard to these conversations is set forth hereinbelow . The next day,

      May 28, employee Maxine Chapman was discharged .5 On May 29, Arnold had a telephone conversation with Morris with regard to Chapman 's discharge . The testimony with respect to their conversation is considered herembelow . Later that same day, according to the uncontradicted testimony of Arnold, Arnold had a telephone conversation with Levin in the course of which he requested recognition of the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the store employees . Arnold stated that the Union represented a majority of the employees, and, when Levin questioned how the Company could be certain of the Union 's majority representation,

      Arnold stated that he was willing to have a check made of the Union's authorization cards. In the course of this conversation , Arnold also objected to Chapman's discharge. Levin suggested a meeting during the following week . On June 1 Arnold met with Levin in Levin's office. The testimony with respect to their conversation on that date is considered hereinbelow . On June 2 Levin addressed a meeting of the employees at the store and had a conversation with a group of several employees.6

      Although they had tentatively agreed to meet on June 3, on that day Arnold stated to Levin that no purpose would be served in meeting with him unless the Respondent agreed to recognize the Union.

      In addition to the above-mentioned oral requests for recognition by the Union, written requests were made by letters dated May 28 and June 4, 1964. The Respondent made no...