Pueblo Supermarkets, Inc.

654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. JEM MFG., INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas, Telephone No. 335-2145. Pueblo Supermarkets , Inc., and Pueblo Supermarkets of St. Thomas, Inc. and Virgin Islands Labor Union, SIU, AFL-CIO. Case No. 24-CA-.05?. January 6,1966 DECISION AND ORDER On October 7, 1965, Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial .Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's 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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief in support thereof, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu- sions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] 1 We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondents ' rule pertaining to solicitation and distribution Is unlawful However, we need not adopt his views or opinions of the case as set forth in footnote 5 of his Decision. In the absence of exceptions , we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner 's finding that any conduct on the part of Respondents ' employee Gibert alleged to have been unlawful may not be attributed to Respondents and therefore is not a violation of Section 8(a)(1). TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge and an amended charge filed respectively on February 2 and March 25, 1965, a complaint, dated March 26, 1965, was duly issued alleging that 156 NLRB No. 65. PUEBLO SUPERMARKETS, INC., ETC. 655 the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Respondents in their answer, as amended at the hearing, generally deny that they had committed the alleged unfair labor practices. A hearing in this pro- ceeding was held before Trial Examiner Herbert Silberman in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, on May 3, 4, and 5, 1965. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respond- ents filed briefs with me. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS Respondents are Puerto Rico corporations. Pueblo Supermarkets, Inc., operates a chain of supermarkets in Puerto Rico where it sells food and household goods at retail. Pueblo Supermarkets of St. Thomas, Inc., which operates a supermarket in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pueblo Supermarkets, Inc., and is operated as an integral segment of the overall operations of Pueblo Supermarkets, Inc., and under the latter's control. Pueblo Supermarkets, Inc., establishes the personnel and labor relations policies of its subsidiary. During the past year, the gross income of each said corporation was in excess of $500,000 and their respective purchases from points outside the Islands were in excess of $50,000. Respondents admit, and I find, that they are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and are joint employers of the employees who work at the St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, store. IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Virgin Islands Labor Union, SIU, AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The facility involved in this proceeding is a supermarket operated by.Respondents in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. About the middle of December 1964 the Union began a campaign to organize the store's employees which, according to organizer Alma De LaCoudray, was finished about,January 20, -1965. The Union filed a representation petition with. the , Board on January 21,- 1965, but made no, other request for recognition. - . In early January 1965 Respondents promulgated a personnel. program for their St. Thomas store and copies thereof, dated January 8, 1965, were distributed to the employees.' Between the date of its promulgation and February 1, 1965, Ewen Duff Walter, manager of the St. Thomas store, explained the -personnel program at a series of orientation meetings with the employees of each of the store's five depart- ments; namely, grocery, meat, produce, dairy, and front end (cashiers and baggers). General Counsel contends that a no-solicitation and no-distribution rule included in the personnel program unlawfully infringes upon employees' statutory rights and that during the orientation meetings Walter unlawfully interrogated employees con- cerning their membership in and attitude towards the Union. In addition, it is alleged that Respondents further violated Section 8(a)(1) by reason of conduct on the part of head cashier Carlos Gilbert Isart. A. The no-solicitation and no-distribution rule General Counsel points to the following provisions of the personnel program as constituting an unlawful no-solicitation and no-distribution rule: Offenses: The following offenses are representative of those requiring discharge, if serious enough, or may warrant a warning: Unauthorized literature, distributing Soliciting, distributing leaflets or other material, or performing any other non- work activity on Company property. 'According to Frank N. Roig, Respondents' director of industrial relations, the per- sonnel program promulgated in January 1965 was a revision of a program in effect since the St. Thomas store was opened in 1963 and In its preparation Respondents drew upon their experiences in the administration of the personnel policies in their Puerto Rico stores. 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rules "which prohibit union solicitation or distribution of union literature on company property by employees during their nonworking time are presumptively an unreasonable impediment to self-organization, and are therefore presumptively invalid both as to their promulgation and enforcement." Walton Manufacturing Company, 126 NLRB 697, enfd. 289 F. 2d 177 (C.A. 5).2 Such presumptive invalidity arises where, as in this case, the offending rule does not specifically use the word " union," "labor organization," or any similar term but is broadly phrased to prohibit all unauthorized solicitation or unauthorized distribution of literature because normally included within the reach of such rule is solicitation of union membership and dis- tribution of union materials. Walton Manufacturing Company, supra, 698-699. Respondents contend "that the prohibition against solicitation and distribution of literature upon company property was not directed against union activity and there had never been any prohibition of union activities on company property.... The record in this case clearly shows that employees and even outside union organizers engaged in solicitation on company property without warning or reprisal." Such circumstance does not change the stainable offensive nature of Respondents' rule. The promulgation of an unlawfully phrased rule has an inhibitory effect upon employees' exercise of their statutory rights, regardless of the innocence of purpose for the rule or the undisclosed limitations placed upon its use and application .3 Furthermore, while as of a particular date the offending rule may not have been invoked against any employees who had engaged in union solicitation or distribution of union literature, as long as the rule is in existence it is susceptible to such applica- tion and therefore tends to coerce, restrain, and interfere with employees' right to engage in self-organizational activities .4 If the rule complained of was not intended by Respondents unlawfully to restrict or to inhibit union activities it should have been phrased in such manner that employees could not misinterpret the Respondents' intentions. As stated by the court in N.L.R.B. v. Harold Miller, et al., d/b/a Miller Charles & Co., 341 F. 2d 870, 871 (C.A. 2), "[The] risk of ambiguity ... must be held against promulgator of the rule rather than against the employees who were supposed to abide by it." Accordingly, I find that the rule in question violates Section 8 (a)( 1) of the Act .5 'As Respondents' -rule against distribution applies anywhere on "Company property," the limitation upon the scope of the Walton ease formulated in Stoddard-Quirk Manu- facturing Co., 138 NLRB 615, is not applicable here. 8 See Stoddard-Quirk Manufacturing Co., 138 NLRB 615, 621. 4 "No proof of coercive intent or effect is necessary under Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, the test being 'whether the employer engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act.' . . Melville Confections, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 327 F. 2d 689, 692 (C.A. 7) Accord: NLRB. v. Burnup and Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21. 5 Respondents cite N L.R B. v. Shawnee Industries, Subsidiary of Thiokol Chemical Corp., 333 F. 2d 221 (C.A 10) ; Ferguson-Lander Box Co, 151 NLRB 1615, and General Dynamics, Fort Worth, a Division of General Dynamics Corp., 145 NLRB 752, as calling for a contrary result. I agree with Respondents that if the Shawnee case were con- trolling then, upon the record in this case, the allegation that the rule in question violates Section 8(a) (1) of the Act should be dismissed. However, the court in the Shawnee case reversed a decision of the Board and there has been no clear indication by the Board that it will follow the decision of the court in the Shawnee case. To the contrary, Miller Charles and Company, 148 NLRB 1579, issued in October 1964, subsequent to the court's decision in the Shawnee case. reaches a result inconsistent with the opinion of the court in the Shawnee case. The Miller case has been enforced and affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit It is my opinion that there is a conflict between the views of the Courts of Appeals for the Tenth and the Second Circuits and that the Board is adhering to the views reflected by its decision in the Shawnee case and has not adopted the con- trary views expressed by the court which refused to enforce that decision. In the Ferguson-Lander case the Board refused to find unlawful a rule which, as written, was not significantly different than the rule in question in this proceeding. However, the Board did not indicate it intended to modify in any manner its earlier decisions in the Walton, Shawnee, and Charles Miller cases. On the record in the Ferguson-Lander case the Board found that the presumptive invalidity of the rule in question had been over- come. The Board found as a fact in the case that the employees did not understand the alleged offending rule to apply to union solicitation or other union matters In the in- stant proceeding I am unable to make such finding. Respondents made no announcement nor did they otherwise communicate to their employees that the rule in question did not apply to union solicitation or other union matters. The circumstance that Store Alan- PUEBLO SUPERMARKETS, INC., ETC. 657 B. The status of Carlos Gibert Isart Carlos Gibert Isart, who customarily works as a head cashier in Respondents' Puerto Rico stores, since August 1964 has been working as head cashier in the St. Thomas store. His current assignment is temporary until Respondents train a St. Thomas resident to assume the position. Gibert's wages and conditions of employment are governed by the collective-bargaining agreement covering Respond- ents' employees in Puerto Rico (except that while working in St. Thomas Gibert is paid 30 percent more than his regular wages of $1.43 per hour). Respondents con- tend that Gibert is not a supervisor. He has no authority to hire, discharge, transfer, or discipline employees nor has it been proved that he has effective authority to recommend any such personnel action. However, General Counsel contends that Gibert has authority responsibly to direct cashiers and baggers in their work. In support of this contention General Counsel relies upon the following: Gibert has a key to the cash registers; He opens the register and takes the opening reading when a cashier reports for duty and takes the closing reading when a cashier leaves a register; He rectifies errors made by cashiers, such as when a cashier overrings the amount of a purchase; He has authority to approve acceptance of checks in amounts not exceeding $30; Where a register functions improperly he has authority to assign the cashier to another register; He has authority to assign baggers to different checkout counters; On occasion he has assigned cashiers and baggers to other duties such as assisting in unloading a truck or sweeping the floor, but for the most part when he has made such assignments it was upon the instructions of the manager or assistant manager; He grants and refuses permission to cashiers and baggers to take their cus- tomary 10-minute breaks. Contrary to General Counsel, I find that Gibert's authority to direct employees is limited to routine matters and does not require the exercise of independent judgment. Accordingly, I find that Gibert is not a supervisor,6 and that any conduct on his part alleged to have been unlawful may not be attributed to Respondents.? C. The interrogation of employees General Counsel contends that Manager Walter unlawfully interrogated employ- ees during the departmental orientation meetings conducted by him in January and on February 1, 1965. The testimony of Walter and that of the employees called by General Counsel as to what transpired at these meetings, for the most part, is mutually corroborative. The only significant area of conflict is whether Walter by his statements and questions at these meetings sought to identify, and partially suc- ceeded in identifying, the Union's supporters among the employees. In my opinion, none of the witnesses were conscious fabricators and the discrepancies in their testi- mony were more the results of faulty memories or poor comprehension than of deliberate prevarication. Manager Walter was the most articulate witness at the hearing and gave the most comprehensive description of what occurred at the meet- ings he conducted. The summary set forth below is based principally upon Walter's ager Walter observed employees talking with a union organizer on the Companys' paik- ing lot is not, in my opinion, an adequate demonstration to the employees of the other- wise uncommunicated limitation on the applicability of the no-solicitation and no- distribution rule. In the General Dynamics case the Board found that the promulga- tion of a broad no-solicitation rule was a technical violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act but dismissed the complaint because the employer therein had engaged in no other unfair labor practices and at the time of the hearing had rescinded the offending rule In this case, the rule complained of by General Counsel was still in force at the time of the hearing. a Sullivan Surplus Sales, Inc., 152 NLRB 132 (as to Brady) ; Tursair Fueling, Inc, and Marvin Louis Howe, Jr., 151 NLRB 270; United Stores of America, 138 NLRB 383, footnote 7. 7I find no factual basis for, or merit to, General Counsel's further argument that Re- spondents "held out Gibert as a person aligned with management and its interests" so that, even if he is not a supervisor , his coercive antiunion statements may be attributed to Respondents 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testimony. However, I have not credited Walter's entire testimony and I have found, despite Walter's denials, that his conduct at the meetings prompted some employees to disclose their union sympathies to him. The purpose of the orientation meetings was to explain to the employees the revised personnel program which Respondents had promulgated in January 1965. Walter was aware of the Union's organizational drive and toward the close of each meeting the subject was raised by Walter or by one of the employees. Walter's general comments concerning the Union were similar at all the meetings. After advising the employees that he knew that a union organizer had been soliciting members among the store's employees he informed them that he preferred to deal with them personally rather than to deal with a union representative. More specifi- cally, according to Walter, he "said to the employees that it's nicer to deal with people you know than have an outsider who doesn't know anything about the condi- tions under which we are operating come in and act as a mother-in-law." He expressed his opinion that certain companies which pay no more than the minimum wages established by law and have no respect for their employees as individuals need a union, but other companies which are conscious of the fact that employees are human beings and should be treated and respected as individuals and which make a great effort to create a happy and contented atmosphere by giving its employees decent wages and conditions of work do not need a union and Pueblo is such a company. He suggested that they speak with their friends who work in union establishments in order to make a comparison between conditions at such establish- ments and those which prevail at Pueblo. He informed the employees that he under- stood the Union's dues were $2 per month. (At the meeting with the front end employees he also pointed out that this amounts to $24 per year or about 1 week's wages for part-time employees.) In this connection he asked the rhetorical ques- tion, "Did the Union people tell you what they are going to do for you?" He assured the employees that they had a legal and moral right to join a union if they wished and that there would be no change in the employees' relationship with him- self and with the Company if they did join a union.8 Walter further testified that he wished to know how many employees supported the Union and at the meetings made efforts to ascertain the facts in this regard. General Counsel contends that Walter went further and sought to identify the union adherents among the store's employees and his efforts in this direction in the context of his expressed opposition to the representation of the employees by the Union constituted coercive interrogation. At three of the meetings, those with the employees in the grocery, produce, and meat departments, Walter told the employees that he could understand why they would be hesitant to reveal to him directly their sentiments concerning the Union and therefore he was going to leave the room and requested the employees who favored the Union to mark an X on a sheet of paper which would be left behind for such purpose. According to Walter, this was the total extent of his inquiries into the union sympathies of the employees. Walter's testimony fairly states the transac- tions at the meetings with the employees in the produce and meat departments .9 However, there is a conflict concerning what happened at the meeting with the grocery department employees. Employees Ephraim Martin and Gasper Serrano testified that at that meeting Walter asked the group as a whole who had signed with the Union (according to Martin), or who had gone with the Union (according to Serrano), and then asked them the same question individually. Walter denied that he made any such direct inquiries but testified that Martin volunteered the informa- tion that he favored the Union. Upon considering the conflicting testimony of Martin, Serrano, and Walter as to what happened at the meeting, I find that the discussion at the meeting was such that Martin and Serrano understood that Walter 8 Almost every witness called by General Counsel acknowledged that Walter in his talks gave them assurances that they had a right to join a union and that such action on their part would not change the relationships between the Company and the employees. 9I credit Walter's version of what happened at his meeting with the meat department employees. According to Walter, when he told the employees in that department that he wanted to know how many were interested in joining the Union and that he was going to leave a sheet of paper for them to mark, Michael Berry interrupted and said that the employees are undecided and wish to talk about the matter among themselves. Because of this Walter did not proceed with the tally. PUEBLO SUPERMARKETS, INC., ETC. 659 wanted to know not only the extent of the union support among the employees but also which employees favored the Union and, unlike the other and perhaps more timid employees who attended the meeting, they informed Walter that they supported the Union. At the last meeting, held on February 1, 1965, with the front end department, Walter did not attempt to obtain any written poll but the discussion of the union matter appears to have been more extensive than at the preceding meetings. Con- siderable testimony, some of which is in conflict, was adduced as to what happened at this meeting. I find that at this meeting Walter indicated to the employees that he wanted to know how many of them were interested in the Union. As to this fact there is no dispute. I further find, despite Walter's denial, that the employees at the meeting understood that Walter also was interested in knowing who supported the Union, although he did not ask that question directly of any employees, and two employees, Alexis Weatherhead and Louis Lima, volunteered the information that they favored the Union. In arguing that Respondents have engaged in unlawful interrogation because of Walter's conduct at the orientation meetings, General Counsel relies principally upon Cannon Electric Company, 151 NLRB 1465, issued in April 1965. In this decision the Board sets forth tentative guidelines to follow in evaluating allegations of unlaw- ful interrogation which are similar to the five factors formulated by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the Bourne case.'0 In applying these factors the Board has indicated that they are to be broadly interpreted. Thus, with respect to the factor of "the background, particularly as it relates to the employer's hostility, if any," the Board construed opposition towards the organization of the employees to be "hostility" despite the absence of evidence demonstrating an attitude of enmity, animosity, or bitterness by the employer towards the labor organization in question. As so construed, "hostility" was proved in this proceeding. With respect to the factor, "the nature of the information sought, especially where it appears designed to permit ascertainment of the identity of employees and their support of the union," the Board interpreted this factor to encompass a situation where "the employees could fear" that their identification was possible even though the questioning was con- ducted in a manner generally designed to give anonymity to the employees' answers. Here the questioning was conducted in a manner which prompted some employees to reveal their union interest. As to the factor, "the identity of the questioner," the Board indicated that a "top company official in charge of personnel" who engages in questioning of employees would have a greater tendency to exercise a restraining impact than lesser officials. As the top company officials at the store, Walter's con- duct would have as great a restraining impact as that of the personnel director in the Cannon case. With respect to the factor, "the place and method of interrogation," the Board opines that calling employees away from their work stations during work- ing hours to a conference room may create an "atmosphere . . . redolent with compulsion." In the instant proceeding the orientation meetings were held in more neutral surroundings; namely, in either the lunchroom or the warehouse. However, as in the Cannon case, the employees did not attend a voluntary assembly but were called to the meetings by the store manager and the meetings were held away from their normal work stations during working hours. The fact that the meetings were held in more familiar surroundings does not materially distinguish the situation in this proceeding from the Cannon case. Finally, with respect to the last factor, "the truthfulness of the reply," the Board considered significant the reaction of 10 employ- ees in a unit of approximately 600. In the present case the testimony shows that a substantially greater proportion of employees indicated to Walter during the orienta- tion meetings a disinterest on their part toward the Union which conflicted with prior action on their part. The only consideration operative in the Cannon case not here present is that in the Cannon case the Board noted "that Respondent took no steps to allay employee fears created by the questionnaire by assuring employees that no reprisals would be taken because of attitudes expressed in the answers to the ques- tionnaire." I do not believe that this factor alone is sufficient to take the instant case outside the reach of the principles delineated by the Board in the Cannon case. Accordingly, I find that by reason of Store Manager Walter's questioning employees at the orientation meetings in January and on February 1, 1965, concerning the "O Bonnie Bourne, d/b/a Bourne Co. v. N.L.R.B., 332 P 2d 47, 48 (C.A. 2). 217-919-66-vol. 15 6-4 3 660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD number who favored the Union and prompting employees to identify themselves as union adherents , Respondents have engaged in unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.1' N. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in con- nection with its operations , described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, 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 Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirma- tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following- CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By promulgating and maintaining in effect rules prohibiting employees during nonworking time from engaging in union solicitation or distributing union literature anywhere on Respondents ' premises and by coercively interrogating employees con- cerning their union sympathies or attitudes Respondents have interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby have engaged in, and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. Respondents have not engaged in any unfair labor practices by reason of conduct alleged in the complaint to have been in violation of the Act except insofar as such conduct has been found heremabove to have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that Pueblo Supermarkets , Inc. and Pueblo Super- markets of St Thomas , Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall- 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Promulgating or maintaining in effect rules prohibiting employees during non- working time from engaging union solicitation or from distributing union literature in nonselling areas of Respondents ' premises. ( b) Questioning employees concerning their union sympathies or attitudes. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at their store in St Thomas , Virgin Islands, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of such notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 24, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondents, be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to their employees are customarily posted. n Respondents cite N L R B v The Lorben Corp., 345 F . 2d 346 ( C A 2) in support of their contention that Waiter's conduct was not unlawfully coercive However, in the Lorben case the court reversed a contrary decision on the part of the Board and the Board has not indicated that it intends to adopt the reasoning of the court Accordingly, I do not find that that case is controlling here . See John F Cuneo Company, 152 NLRB 929 "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the 'Board, the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words " a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " In the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." YOUNG MOTOR TRUCK SERVICE, INC. 661 Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith.13 "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT promulgate or maintain in effect any rule prohibiting employ- ees during nonworking time from engaging in union solicitation or from dis- tributing union literature in nonselling areas of our premises . WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning their union sympathies or attitudes. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. PUEBLO SUPERMARKETS, INC. AND PUEBLO SUPERMARKETS OF ST. THOMAS, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------=---------------------------------=-- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, P.O. Box 11007, Fernandez Juncos Station, Santurce, Puerto Rico, Telephone No. 724- 7171. Young Motor Truck Service, Inc. and Local 653, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 1-CA-4433. January. 7,•1966 DECISION AND ORDER On July 14, 1964, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged 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 further found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfa.ir'labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The Respondent did not except to the Trial Examiner's Decision., ' The Respondent requested, and was granted , an extension of time to file exceptions and a brief, but did not do so. 156 NLRB No. 56.