NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,429, FILENE’S, INC., DIVISION OF MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY and UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 919, AFL-CIO., (Aug. 12, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Aug 12, 1994)

FILENE’S, INC., DIVISION OF MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY and UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 919, AFL-CIO.

314 NLRB No. 119.Case No. 34-CA-6180. August 12, 1994 Howard Edelman, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Stephens and Browning.

Ursula L. Haerter, for General Counsel. Stephen D. Shawe (Shawe & Rosenthal), for Respondent.

Discharges--Cause as Justification--Suspected Theft.--Although an employer discharged a union activist who was suspected of shoplifting from the employer, it had valid cause to do so. The employer initially suspended the employee and gave her an opportunity to locate a receipt for the merchandise that the employee claimed she had purchased. However, when the employee failed to produce the receipt within a week, the employer lawfully terminated her. Section 8(a)(3).

Back reference: ¶4065.608.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.

The Charging Party has specifically excepted to the judge’s failure to credit the testimony of Betsy Hodgson that, approximately 10 days following her discharge for suspected theft of store merchandise, she contacted the Respondent and offered to produce a store receipt assertedly documenting her purchase of the merchandise. Although the judge did not specficially address this testimony, he discredited Hodgson’s testimony in general and found that the “credible evidence ... established that Hodgson was unable to provide Respondent with a receipt for the suspected shoplifted merchandise.” We find that the judge’s credibility resolutions are supported by the record. In addition, even if accepted as true, Hodgson’s testimony concerning her belated offer to produce the alleged receipt for the merchandise would not affect our conclusion that Hodgson was lawfully discharged. The credible evidence establishes that the Respondent adhered to its disciplinary procedures in its treatment of Hodgson. On its suspension of Hodgson for suspected theft, the Respondent initially allowed her 24 hours to produce a receipt for the merchandise. Hodgson was actually given more than 1 week to do so. Hodgson failed to produce a receipt within the allotted time period, and was accordingly lawfully discharged on May 4, 1993.