Central Markets

CENTRAL MARKETS 503 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the 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 refuse to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees in the following appropriate unit: All the employees in the bindery and shipping and receiving depart- ment at our Evansville, Indiana, plant ; excluding office clerical and pro- fessional employees , guards and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act and all other employees. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Local 73L, Lithogra- phers and Photoengravers International Union , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees in the following appropriate unit: All lithographic production employees at our Evansville , Indiana, plant, including offset press operators, platemakers , strippers, camera- men, pasteup, layout, and art employees; excluding compositors , letter pressmen, proofreaders, office clerical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act and all other employees. WE WILL, upon request, bargain, collectively with the aforesaid labor organizations and, if an understanding is reached , with either organization, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. KRIEGER-RAGSDALE AND COMPANY, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post- ing, 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, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis , Indiana 46204, Telephone 633-8921. The Golub Corporation , Mechanicville Central, Inc. d/b/a Central Markets and Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Butcher Workmen and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO. Case 3-CA-12565. Juirte 16,1966 DECISION AND ORDER On February 15, 1966, 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 cer- tain affirmative action,' as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's 'The Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to pass on the question'of the validity of the union authorization card of employee Louis Paluso as raised by the Respondent in its brief to the Trial Examiner . The Respondent in its exceptions again questions the validity of such card . On the basis of the record herein , we find the union authorization card of Louis Paluso to be valid. We need not pass upon the validity of any of the other cards held by the Union and not counted by the Trial Examiner 159 NLRB No. 48. 504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Decision. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommended that these allega- tions be dismissed.2 Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.' 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 the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] 2The Trial Examiner dismissed an allegation that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by paying for time spent by employees at a dinner meeting where the Board election, to be held the next day, was discussed. The Trial Examiner's dismissal of such allegation was based upon the conclusion that the General Counsel failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such payment was not the customary practice of the Respondent in similar situations . We note, in a companion proceeding involving the same Respondent at stores located in other areas, the Board adopted the finding of the Trial Examiner that such was the customary practice of the Respondent, 159 NLRB 355. 8 No briefs were filed in support of such exceptions. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed on March 2, 1965 , and amended on April 9, 1965, by Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Butcher Workmen and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union, the complaint in Case 3-CA-2567 was issued on April 21, 1965. Upon a charge filed by the Union on May 10, 1965, the compalint in Case 3-CA-2654 was issued on June 7, 1965. By order of the Regional Director for Region 3, dated June 8, 1965 , the above two cases were consolidated.' The complaint in Case 3-CA-2567 alleged that The Golub Corporation and Central Markets Oper- ating Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Company or the Respondents, vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. In answer thereto, Respondents denied the alleged unfair labor practices . The complaint in Case 3-CA-2654 alleged that Respondents violated Section 8 (a)(5) and (1 ) of the Act, which allegations the Respondents denied in their answer thereto. As will be more fully explained hereinbelow, The Golub Corporation operates a chain of stores and the instant cases involve different stores in said chain .2 Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Albany, New York, in the instant cases on July 13 and 14, 1965 ,3 before Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert. All parties to 'A third case was included in said consolidation order , The Golub Corporation, Me- chanicville Central, Inc. d/b/a Central Markets and Amalgamated Meat Cutters. Butcher Workmen and Store Clerks of North America , District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO, Case 3-CA-2565 . Shortly after the commencement of the bearing on the three cases, the latter case was severed from the instant cases . upon motion of Respondents, over the ob- jections of General Counsel and the Charging Party. 2 The case which was severed from the instant cases involved a third store in said chain. 8 After the severance of the third case on July 13, the hearing proceeded in the instant cases on said dates . At the end of the day of July 14 , 1965, the instant cases were closed for the receipt of evidence. However, the said cases were not formally closed until July 16 at the conclusion of the hearing of the above -mentioned third case (which was heard on July 15 and 16). CENTRAL MARKETS 505 the proceedings appeared and were given full opportunity to offer relevant and competent evidence. Briefs were received from General Counsel and Respond- ents within the time designated therefor. Upon the entire record in this consolidated proceeding and my observation of the witnesses as they testified, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS The Golub Corporation and Central Markets Operating Co., Inc., its "'entirely owned and controlled subsidiary," admittedly have common ownership, officers, supervision, and labor policies. The "Golub Corporation operates a chain of 25 retail food stores through subsidiary corporations including the above-named sub- sidiay corporation:- The Golub Corporation maintains its principal offices, ware- house, and place of business in Schenectady, New York,' and through its above- named subsidiary, operates a store in Glens-Falls, New York, the store involved in Case 3-CA-2567, and a store in North Troy, New York, the store involved in Case 3-CA-2654.- The Respondent corporations are engaged at said locations in the sale and distribution of groceries, produce, and related products. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaints involved herein, Respondents in the course and conduct of their business operations sold and distributed prod- ucts of a gross value in excess of $500 ,000, and during the same period of time received goods valued in excess of $50,000, transported to their places of busi- ness in the, State of New York directly from States other than the State of New York. As is admitted by Respondents, they are, and have been at all times material herein, "individually and collectively" an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of-the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED As is admitted by Respondents, Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Butcher Workmen and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES For purposes of clarity and convenience the instant cases will be considered separately hereinbelow. A. Case 3-CA-2567 (the Glens Falls Store) Chronology of Undisputed Facts The following facts are disclosed in the record and are undisputed: At the end of November 1964, Henry Ebert, an employee,4 contacted a repre- sentative of the Union. On December 1, 1964, apparently as a result of said contact, a union repre- sentative met Henry Ebert in the parking lot at the store, and they had lunch in a nearby restaurant. From December 1 to February 1, Henry Ebert asked approximately 12 fellow employees to sign union authorization cards and received from them 12 signed cards. On December 12 and 15, 1964, Respondents held meetings of employees 5 at which William Golub, an owner and officer of the Respondents, delivered speeches which were substantially the same. It appears, for the most part, employees who did not attend the first meeting were present at the second meeting. The employ- ees were paid for their time spent at said meetings. On or about December 17, 1964, Respondents gave employees their annual Christmas bonuses, apparently an amount of money equivalent to 1 week's wages. On December 18, a letter addressed to employees from Golub was posted in A All references to employee or employees in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision dealing with Case 3-CA-2567 are to employees of the store involved in this case (the Glens Falls store) unless otherwise indicated. 5 It appears that employees from some of the other stores in the chain were also present. 506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD all of the stores in the chain including the one involved herein . The letter referred to the status of, the representation proceeding related to the other case in this proceeding, that is, Case 3-CA-2654. Effective as of the beginning of January 1965 , the employees in all of the 25 stores in the chain received a wage increase.6 On February 26, 1965, Ebert was discharged. The Issues The following issues are raised by the pleadings herein: 1. Whether Roger Hoyt, a district manager of Respondents, unlawfully inter- rogated Ebert on or about December 4 and 18. 2. Whether or not Hoyt unlawfully threatened Ebert and another employee, Keith Jackson , with future loss of their Christmas bonuses at the time they received their bonuses on or about December 17, 1964. 3. Whether Hoyt, by a statement made to Ebert in the early part of 1965, created the impression of surveillance of the concerted activities of employees. 4. Whether the aforementioned letter which was posted on or about Decem- ber 18 created the impression that Respondents were engaged in surveillance of employees' concerted activities. 5. Whether by the payment to employees for their time spent at the meetings on December 12 and 15 Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 6. Whether by the general wage increase granted to the employees -at the begin- ning of January 1965 Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. Whether by his speeches given at the meetings of December 12 and 15 Golub unlawfully threatened employees. 8. Whether the discharge of Ebert on February 26 was discriminatorily motivated. Although the complaint alleges that on or about December 11, 1964, John Cross, the store manager , unlawfully promised and granted employees economic benefits, there appears to be nothing in the record to support this allegation and General Counsel makes no reference in his brief . with respect thereto . There- fore, this allegation will not be considered hereinbelow and it will be recom- mended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it relates thereto. 1. The alleged unlawful interrogation Ebert testified that on December 4, 1964, Hoyt invited him over to the snack- bar in the store for a cup of coffee at which time they held a conversation. Ebert's testimony with respect to the relevant portion thereof is as follows: Mr. Hoyt asked me what I knew about the Union in the Glens Falls area. I had told him that I had signed the card, that I had a button, and I was glad to wear it-a Local #1 button. TRIAL EXAMINER: You told him you had signed the card? The WITNESS: Yes. TRIAL EXAMINER: And what else? The WITNESS- And that I had a button and would be glad to wear it. Q. (By Mr. STANTON.) Then, what happened? A. He told me that we didn't need the Union in there and asked me what my grievances were. Q. What did you say? A. I told him money, money, and money. Then he said, "Then your trouble would all be solved by money?" and I said, "About 95 percent of it." He said was there anything else. I said we needed a better vacation pay, better hospitalization, and more job security. Then Mr. Hoyt replied that the best job security was to do a good job for the company. When Hoyt was called as a witness by Respondents, he was asked by Respondents' counsel if he remembered having a conversation with Ebert in which he asked him, "What do you know about the Union?" to which Hoyt responded that he did not remember any such conversation. When Respondents' counsel then referred to 'It appears that the wage increases were not made immediately effective in two stores which were involved in representation proceedings. CENTRAL MARKETS 507 Ebert's testimony that during the course of the conversation, he told Hoyt that he had signed a card and had a button and would be glad to wear it, Hoyt testified as follows: Well, I think I recall the incident that took place. As I recall, I called Henry Ebert out to have a cup of coffee with me, as I do most all of my employees at one time or another, and at that time, we sat down at the snack bar door and I asked him if he had any problems, and he said "I certainly do," and he said, "money, money, money," he said, "that's why I'm sporting this union button." Q. Did he have a union button on him at that time? A. Yes sir. The only substantial differences in their testimony are whether or not the conversa- tion was commenced by Holt questioning Ebert as to what he knew about the Union and whether or not Ebert was wearing a union button. While Hoyt testified Ebert was wearing a union button, Ebert's testimony is not clear on this point. From his statement'in the first part of his testimony, "I was glad to wear it," it would appear that he was wearing the button. Immediately thereafter when requested to repeat his testimony he changed the tense of the verb and testified that he said he "would be glad to wear it," which would appear to indicate that he was not wearing the button. Ebert testified to a subsequent conversation with Hoyt on or about December 18 or 19 as follows: Mr. Hoyt asked me when we were going to have an election in the Glens Falls area, or didn't we have enough cards. I told him I had signed the card, and I felt sure when the Union petitioned for an election, that they would notify somebody, either in the Glens Falls area or at the office in Schenectady. He then asked me what I thought of the election in North Troy. I told him that it went as anticipated, and I was led to believe that the. Company expected it, also. He said they weren't, and then he walked away: When Hoyt was questioned as to whether he had such a conversation with Ebert, he responded, "I don't believe so. I don't remember saying that of all." All of the allegations of unfair labor practices involving individual employees, except for one incident with respect to which employee Jackson testified, involved Ebert. Most of the credibility problems raised in the hearing in, this case are whether Ebert's testimony or the testimony of several of Respondents' witnesses, which contradicts Ebert's in part, should be credited. From observation-of Ebert and said Respondents' witnesses on the stand and a careful study of their testi- mony, it is my conclusion that that portion of Ebert's testimony which is con- tradicted cannot be credited? Hoyt appeared to be a candid witness. For exam- ple, his testimony clearly established that Respondents had knowledge of Ebert's strong prounion sentiment: Hoyt not only testified that Ebert wore a union button but also that, when he asked Ebert if he had heard of the result of an election at another store which the Union had lost by a substantial vote, Ebert replied. "That was one for us [referring to an election in another store which the Union had won] and one for you." Therefore, I credit Hoyt's testimony as to the conversation on December 4 and that Ebert was wearing a union button at the time,8 and I credit Hoyt's denial of Ebert's testimony relating to a conversation on December 17 or 18. There is no evidence that Respondents engaged in interrogation of any other employees. It is concluded that in all the circumstances of this case 9 Hoyt's interrogation of Ebert on December 4 (apparently as to why he wanted the Union) did not constitute interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a) (1) of the Act. It is also concluded that General Counsel has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondents engaged in unlawful interro- gation as alleged in paragraph 8(a) of the complaint. 7 Further reasons for this conclusion will be indicated hereinbelow in consideration of the issue of whether Ebert's discharge was discriminatorily motivated s Ebert testified that he did wear the union button in the store on another occasion, which testimony was not contradicted and is credited 6 That Hoyt was aware of Ebert' s prounion attitude by his wearing of the union button, and, therefore, had no need to ascertain Ebert's attitude toward the Union ; that the interrogation was an isolated incident; and the finding hereinbelow that Ebert's discharge was not discriminatorily motivated 508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Alleged threats by Hoyt Ebert testified that when he was given his Christmas bonus on December 17 or 18 by Hoyt, Hoyt told him that if he "had any more visitors, this could be the last one-bonus." Jackson testified that, when Hoyt handed him his bonus, Hoyt stated "that if the Union came in, that possibly that would be the last Christmas bonus we would receive." Hoyt, when questioned about this testimony of Ebert and Jackson, denied that he made any such statements. Hoyt further testified as follows: Yes sir, when I pass out the Christmas bonus it's customary to say "Merry Christmas," or "Happy New Year," and at that time, in fact, I said to all employees, I said "I hope we get many more of these," or I said "I hope this isn't the last one," meaning that I hoped there would be many more. There is nothing in the record which would shed any light on what the refer- ence (in Ebert's testimony) to "visitors" means.10 In any event, for reasons indicated above, Hoyt's denial of Ebert's testimony is credited. Jackson .was an employee of Respondents at the time bonuses were distributed but had been discharged sometime prior to the hearing. There is no showing that Respondents had any knowledge of Jackson's attitude toward the Union and there is no contention that his discharge was discriminatorily motivated. Further, there is no indication of why Hoyt might have singled out Jackson as the person to whom to voice such a threat, there being no evidence that such a statement was made to any other employee. Jackson was not as impressive a witness as Hoyt appeared to be, and, therefore, Hoyt' s denial of Jackson's testimony is credited. Thus, it is concluded that the General Counsel has failed to prove by a prepon- derance of the evidence the allegation in paragraph 8(c) of the complaint that Hoyt threatened employees with economic reprisals. 3. The alleged, impression of surveillance Ebert testified that, in the first part of February, Hoyt made a statement to him which General Counsel contends created the impression of surveillance. Ebert's testimony is as follows: Mr. Hoyt announced that there was a big Union meeting the night before, I believe, and that only six attended. I didn't know anything about it, so I didn't say anything. Q. Did he mention where the Union meeting was held? A. In Mechanicville. Hoyt denied this testimony. For the reasons stated hereinabove, Hoyt's denial is credited. On or about December 18, Respondents posted a letter to employees in all of its stores including the one involved in this case. The pertinent portions of the letter are as follows: On Wednesday, December 16th, a Union election of 17 people was held in our North Troy store. The Union received 3 more votes than the company (10-7). The results of the election are NOT yet final, pending further pro- ceedings before the NLRB. We are in the process of filing objections to the conduct of the election and we must await their final decision. Of the people who voted, 4 or 5 were new or part time employees who, with only a few months of service, are still unfamiliar with the fine personal rela- tionships the company enjoys with most of its employees. We do not feel that this vote honestly represents the thinking of the majority of our Central Market family. General Counsel contends in his brief that the second paragraph quoted above conveyed the impression that the organizational activities and sympathies of its employees were known to Respondents, pointing out that William Golub "candidly m It is possible that the reference to visitors was supposed to convey the meaning of contact with union representatives by reason of some other conversation or incident to which Ebert might have testified However, such testimony did not get into the record, and, therefore, such a surmise is mere speculation. There is no showing that Hoyt had knowledge of Ebert's meeting with a union representative on December 1 (noted herein- above), nor is it reasonable to infer the existence of such knowledge. CENTRAL MARKETS 509 testified that he had never asked employees in the North Troy store how they voted nor did any of them volunteer such information to him." It does not appear that the reasonable effect of the above-quoted statement was that which General Counsel contends. On the contrary, it is concluded that the reasonable interpreta- tion of the letter is that the Union won the election by only three votes and that the votes of the four or five new or part-time employees who were "still unfamiliar with the fine personal relationships the company enjoys with most of its employees" must have been the margin which gave the Union its victory in the election. This interpretation is based upon the accompanying explanation which indicates the basis upon which the Respondents predicated said inference as to how the "new" employees voted. Therefore, it is concluded that the General Counsel has not proved by a pre- ponderance of the evidence that the Respondents "attempted to give or gave the impression of surveillance" of the concerted activities of its employees, as alleged in paragraph 8(d) of the complaint. 4. Payment for attending meetings of employees Respondents admitted that the employees were paid for the time they spent at the breakfast and dinner on December 12 and 15, at which Golub gave speeches expressing opposition to the Union. General Counsel contends that such payment constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and cites in support of his contention U-Tell Corporation, 150 NLRB 1534, 1536. In the cited case the Board affirmed the Trial Examiner's Decision which contained the following conclusion: In paying its employees for attendance at plant meetings when prior to the Union's organizing campaign it had not so paid them, -Respondent granted them an economic benefit which, when taken in conjunction with Dumke's remarks on the following day to the cashiers that if the Union came in they would be deprived of certain specific benefits previously enjoyed, suggests the `fist inside the velvet glove' as the Supreme Court described it in N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts, 375 U.S. 405. This was violative of the Act. [Emphasis supplied.] Although it is found hereinbelow that by certain portions of his speech delivered at said breakfast and dinner parties, Golub violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. there is no showing that Respondents had not made payments to them for attend- ing similar parties prior thereto. On the contrary, it appears from the uncontra- dicted testimony of Golub that payment to employees for attending similar gather- ings had been Respondents' practice for a number of years. Therefore, it is concluded that the payment to employees for their time while attending the December 12 and 15 meetings was not violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, since it was a continuation of a long established practice. 5. The general wage increase Respondents admitted that they granted a general wage increase to their employ- ees at the beginning of January 1965. The record reveals that the general wage increase applied not only to the employees in the store involved in this case but also to the employees in all 25 stores in the chain. The record shows that the wage increase became effective as of January 4, 1965. In the year prior thereto, there was also a general wage increase which became effective on February 10, 1964. John A. Moran, Respondents' personnel director, who entered the person- nel department in April 1961, testified that there was no wage increase given for the year 1963, but there was an increase in fringe benefits in lieu of a wage increase and that after consideration by management in 1961, it was decided not to give a wage increase for 1962. The record reveals that there was also a wage increase given for 1961. Moran further testified that it was the practice while he was in the personnel department to review the financial situation and other relevant factors in the third quarter of the calendar year to determine whether there should be an increase in wages or benefits for the following calendar year. It appears that the chain's fiscal year ended on May 1. He also testified that, around September 1964, such a review was made at a meeting of top management in which he participated, and that the decision was made at that time to grant a wage increase for the year 1965 which was to be announced at the forthcoming Christmas parties. He also testified that one of the reasons which prompted the decision was that two of Respondents' competitors, "A & P" and "Grand Union" had given a wage increase. 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Golub substantially corroborated his testimony, as did John J. Julian, superintend- ent of store operations of the chain. The record reveals by their uncontradicted testimony that it was Respondents' custom to announce wage increases or the grant- ing of other benefits at the Christmas parties which it was the practice to give for the employees in the entire chain. The above outlined testimony is credible. The testimony of Moran and Golub as to the wage increases given by competitive chains was not contradicted. Therefore, I credit the testimony that the decision to grant a wage increase effective at the beginning of the year 1965 was made prior to the advent of the Union. There is no showing that at the time of said decision, there was any attempt to organize the store involved in this case, or, for that matter, any of the other stores in the chain. Although it may reasonably be assumed that Respond- ents were aware, after the advent of the Union, that the wage increase would tend to discourage employees from accepting the Union as their bargaining representative, in view of the above credited testimony it is my conclusion that the decision to grant a wage increase was not motivated by the desire to undermine the Union's organiza- tional attempts and, therefore, the granting of said wage increase was not violative of Section 8(a)(1) of-the Act. 6. Golub's speeches on December 12 and 15 Several of General Counsel's witnesses testified to some of the statements Golub made in the cour'se 'of his speeches to employees on December 12 and 15, and Golub delivered aspeech on the witness stand from the notes he used in deliver- ing the speeches on the two occasions. Golub testified, as did one of General Counsel's witnesses, employee Phillip Banning, that he gave substantially the same speech on both occasions. The statements which General Counsel's witnesses testi- fied Golub made are substantially reflected in the speech he delivered on the stand, which required approximately- 20 pages of the transcript. Considerable portions of the speech have no relevance to the issues in this case. Following is a resume of the pertinent portions and quotations of those sections considered to be, particularly significant. After speaking at length on the theme that everyone in management started from "the bottom" and giving a number of examples of this; Golub' stated that employees were now "getting pressures from the outside," and that ""outsiders," ostensibly referring to union representatives, were telling the employees. what they can `do for them. Golub described in deprecatory terms the good faith of the union representatives and the methods they use to organize employees. He further described in detail the irresponsibility of the union steward who would have "authority" over them." He also described the many costs which might' be assessed against them by the ' Union and contrasted the- "privileges" management has always given to them. In referring thereto he spoke as follows: Now, you know that in our dealings with you, that we've always had personal consideration, that where we can't [can] give you any personal privilege that doesn't affect the stores, or the company, we are always happy to do so. If you want to go and play in a basketball game, or if you want to attend that prom, or if a child is sick, or for any one of a number of reasons you want time-off, we've always been happy to do that. Under a union contract, that .type of thing could be eliminated because we have to live under that contract, and you have to live under the steward, and if we did any of those things, that we would well be in violation of our contract, and therefore, we would undoubtedly have to give that type of thing up, which is only one of the normal human things that you know we've done through the years, and con- tinue to do as part of our normal operation. Golub next referred to the union organizers and related that "in a couple of cases" the unions who employed them fired them because they tried to organize a union to represent them. He stated that the salaries of the organizers and their expenses would come out of the employees' pockets, that the dollars that would go to the Union could be best employed by the Company in granting its employees 11 At this point Golub described the type of employee who would be used by the Union to organize his fellow employees and would be made steward . Golub referred to such an employee as one "who suddenly becomes a little bigshot ." Thus reference is considered hereinbelow in resolving the issue of Ebert 's discharge. CENTRAL MARKETS 511 benefits. Golub recited in considerable detail the benefits which the Company had already granted its employees. Golub then spoke as follows: Now, I want to tell you further that when they come in with their excessive demands, and unrealistic demands, that they are not concerned with what's best for you, and for us individually, and collectively, for us as a company. You know that in our business, and you can check anywhere, we're happy to come out with approximately a one percent net profit in our operation. That means that we're satisfied if we can come out with a one cent per dollar profit on all of the business we do, and when we talk about one cent or one per- cent, you can see how tight our profit margin is, and therefore, how little lee- way there is in adding expenses to our operations. Now, when they come in with unrealistic demands that cause us to have a lot higher costs, something has to suffer. Either we have to increase prices in order to meet it, or take losses, and if we increase prices, there is always the question as to how much business we'll do, because don't kid yourself, the public is the boss. They know what they want, and if we don't give them what they want, they won't come to us, and in relation to the amount of business we have, or can keep, or can build, you and we either prosper or suffer by that. It's just that simple. We know of a case around here in both large chains and small chains, where these union demands, and union contracts, have caused problems. One of the largest chains that has a contract now as a result of it, had to raise their prices, and they therefore, became uncompetitive and lost business. As a result, we've had many applications from people who work \ for them, and many of our people around the stores have told us that they recently laid off approximately twenty-five percent of their help, both full time and part time, and that those that were kept on a part time basis, were often given the kind of hours that they couldn't get to work on, and therefore, took cuts in their hours. Now, we've heard this in many directions, both from applicants com- ing in looking for jobs, and from our employees who have met their employees at either lunch or dinner or elsewhere along- the- way, and we repeat what they told us. In addition, we know of a small chain down in Kingston, known as Bull- Markets, I've talked to their owner who I've known for years, and he told me they were forced out of business recently because of a• union contract they couldn't ,afford. I was told of another place near here known as Dun- can's, an eating place, who had to close up because of the demands he couldn't meet. There was a discount branch store around here who had to go out of business because they couldn't-meet the demands put upon them by the union. Now, don't again, think that there's any Santa Claus. Ours is the most com- petitive business in the world, and if we're not competitive, we do not get the amount of business we need to be successful and to grow. And if we're forced to go on an unrealistic basis, we can be put into jeopardy in the things that we're hoping to accomplish. Following the above-quoted statements Golub told the employees that they had the right to make up their own minds and the Company the right to tell them what it thinks is right or wrong, reassured them that the Company would never threaten or "consider doing anything" to employees as a result of their believing in unions, and stated "the only basis that you have to be concerned about in your keeping your job with the Company, is that you do your job reasonably well." He then cited an example of an employee who had been "very union minded," that after the Company won the election the employee "recognized that it was wrong to have felt that.way about the unions," and even though the Company knew he had been "union minded" it "pushed him along like we did in so many other cases, today that kid is manager of our store in Hudson." Golub stated that he knew of no instance "as of this moment" where the Company had ever taken any action against anyone who was "union minded" and that as long as an employee does his job reasonably well "he has nothing to fear." Golub followed this by stating that it was the Company's practice to give bene- fits and increases whenever it could, "usually on a yearly basis." He further stated that as a result of a study made during the year the Company will again grant a "general increase" to all employees. He related further that they had been given an increase for the year 1964 and increased benefits in 1963, but the Company had to "skip" giving anything in 1962 because of the economic situation. 512 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD He further related that there were increases given to them in 1961. He stated that it had always been the company policy to give its employees what it could afford and it would continue to do so. He advised the employees that just because they signed a union card they were not "obligated to stay by that decision." He ended his speech with the following statement: Remember that in your own dignity, in your own decision lies the best for you as an individual, lies your greatest degree of freedom, as we see it, your greatest degree of security for the future, because in what we have done through the years together, we can continue to do again. Continue to do in the future. Don't let anybody bring in tension or frighten you into anything else. Let's stay free together, let's continue to grow together. It is concluded that Golub clearly implied that inevitable results of the em- ployees electing to have the Union represent them would be a loss of personal privileges which the Company formerly extended to them and a layoff of some of the employees, a cut in their hours or a closing of the store. This exceeded the bounds of lawful expression of opinion within the meaning of Section 8(c) of the Act. Despite the reassurances 12 contained in the speech, review of the entire speech discloses that it was calculated to create and instill in the minds of the employees a fear of economic suffering and loss of privileges as a result of their adherence to the Union which constituted interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Bernardin, Inc., 153 NLRB 939; Louisiana Manufacturing Company, 152 NLRB 1301; N.L.R.B. v. Harold Miller, et al. d/bla Miller Charles & Co., 341 F.2d 870 (C.A. 2); Collins & Aikman Corp., 143 NLRB 15. 7. The discharge of Ebert Ebert, whose employment by the Company commenced on April 24, 1961, was discharged on February 26, 1965. In the course of his employment he worked in various stores in the Company's chain as produce clerk and, on quite a few occasions, as produce manager. It appears that for the most part his stints as produce manager were in relief of a regular produce manager.13 In July of 1963 he was transferred to the store involved in this case where he held the po- sition of produce clerk. On or about February 19, 1965, Hoyt told Ebert that he understood he wanted his vacation to start the first of March and that it had been so arranged. Hoyt also told him that Stephen Vamvalis, the produce manager, was taking his vaca- tion the last week in February. Hoyt then,; asked Ebert if, he would "take over" the job of produce manager while Vamvaliss was on-vacation to which Ebert agreed. Commencing on February 22, Ebert worked in the capacity of produce man- ager. On the morning of February 26, there were plastic bags of apples and pep- pers in two 55-gallon drums used as garbage cans and located in a backroom. According to Ebert there were some 25 to 30 3-pound bags of apples in the top part of 1 drum and 1 bag of 12 peppers in the top part of the other which he had placed there to be disposed of as garbage. It'appears,,that the bags are trans- parent and that the Company's rule wa's that, when a bag containing produce has become unsaleable because of spoilage of some of its contents, the bag must be opened, the unsaleable merchandise removed, and the saleable produce repack- aged. According to the testimony of Hoyt and John J. Julian, superintendent of the Company's store operations, there were considerably more than one bag of peppers in the drums, but it is not clear whether there were a greater number of bags of apples than the number to which Ebert testified. Julian testified that one drum was about three quarters full of unopened bags of apples and another drum was about half filled with unopened bags of peppers. Ebert testified that on the preceding day, Vamvalis, the produce manager for whom he was substituting, came into the store and instructed him to throw away the bags of apples. Ebert fur- ther testified that there were good apples in the bags and that he believed the bags should not have been thrown away, but that he did not question Vamvalis' instructions. 3' The reassurances were, in substance, that the Company would not discriminate against any employee because of his belief in the Union and did not offset the effect of the im- plication of the inevitable results of union representation. n:It appears that the position of produce manager is not that of a supervisor. CENTRAL MARKETS 513 About noon on February 26, Hoyt, who is district supervisor for several stores, was in the store when Julian arrived with Pat DiCoco, a district manager of stores in another area. Julian testified that he came to the store in the course of a rou- tine inspection. According to Julian's testimony, he examined the produce sales racks and found some unsaleable merchandise, and that after he gave instructions for its disposal he walked into the backroom, where, he testified, he saw the two drums, "one of the drums was overflowing with apples and one was overflowing with peppers." He further testified that he examined the drums and found one three quarters full of bags of apples which were unopened and the other was half filled with unopened bags of peppers, that he then sent DiCoco, who was with him, to get Hoyt and upon Hoyt's arrival, questioned him about the items in the gar- bage cans; that Hoyt went out and brought Ebert back with him, that he asked Ebert, "what the apples were doing in the garbage can unopened"; and that Ebert replied that "he didn't have time to open them and they were being thrown away." Julian testified that he instructed Hoyt to get the produce department cleaned up, that he then went on a tour of the rest of the store; and that when Hoyt rejoined him, in the course of his tour, he told Hoyt to discharge Ebert. Julian further testified that the reason he ordered Ebert's discharge was that Ebert "was destroy- ing merchandise that could have been sold." He admitted on cross-examination that he was "angry" at the time he instructed Hoyt to discharge Ebert. Hoyt sub- stantially corroborated Julian's testimony except for a minor inconsistency as to who questioned Ebert about the unopened bags of produce.14 According to Ebert's testimony on direct examination he was not called into the backroom and questioned about the unopened bags in the garbage cans. Ebert testified that about 2 p.m. (some 2 hours after Julian's inspection of the store) he was given a warning slip by Hoyt together with a "white slip" enumerating his acts of misconduct including the destruction of saleable merchandise (which was the second of the seven items,of misconduct set forth). Ebert further testi- fied that he "tried to explain some of the things on it [the list containing the seven items of misconduct]," that Hoyt replied that Ebert was the manager and "respon- sible for it" and that Hoyt would not listen to him. However, this testimony is. inconsistent with his later testimony. On cross-examination Ebert testified that- Hoyt did question him as to why he "was throwing out all of the apples," and it appears from his testimony at this point that the questioning was done in the backroom in front of the garbage cans containing the unopened bags of produce and was prior to Ebert's receipt of the warning notice and white slip.15 Ebert further testified that he was notified of his discharge at the end of he day, about 5 p.m. Vamvalis, who was called as a witness by Respondents, testified that, although he was in the store on several occasions during his vacation, he did not give Ebert instruction to throw out the apples. On the other hand, not only did Ebert testify that Vamvalis gave him instructions to dispose of the bags of apples, but also. that Vamvalis came in "every day" during his vacation and gave him instructions "approximately every day." However, when Ebert was asked to give the details, of Vamvalis' visits to the store and the instructions he gave Ebert, Ebert's testi- mony was vague and inconsistent with his claim that he received instructions from Vamvalis "approximately every day." In contrast thereto, Ebert related in con- siderable detail other facts with respect to that week, such as the hours he and, others worked and the condition of the produce on the sales racks. Ebert's testimony contained inconsistencies and evasions. On the other hand, both Julian and Vamvalis appeared to me to be testifying to the best of their recollection and, as indicated above, Hoyt appeared to be a candid witness. There— 14 According to Hoyt's testimony it was he who asked Ebert why the bags were in the garbage cans. 15 Ebert testified that not only were the apples "discussed," but the peppers were men- tioned as well, and that nobody made an effort to remove any of the bags of apples or peppers from the drums during the course of the conversation about them . Ebert further testified that he explained about Vamvalis' instructions and Hoyt replied that he (Ebert) was the manager that week, not Vamvalis. It appears that this discussion occurred shortly after noon , because there is uncontradicted testimony that immediately after the discovery of the unopened bags of produce, they were opened and the produce repackaged. 243-084-67-vol 159-34 1 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fore, the testimony of Julian and Hoyt as to the facts surrounding the discharge of Ebert is credited, as is Vamvalis' denial that he gave instructions to Ebert to dispose of the apples. There are factors present which tend to cast suspicion on the Company's motive in discharging Ebert. Ebert was active in attempting to organize the employees in the store. The record discloses the Company's animus toward the Union; it had knowledge of Ebert's union partisanship; and as was indicated in Golub's speeches on December 12 and 15, the Company was aware of the Union's prac- tice of using an employee to act as an organizer.16 However, there are other fac- tors appearing in the record to indicate that the discharge was not discrimina- torily motivated The discharge did not occur until almost 3 months after the Company had knowledge of Ebert's strong prounion attitude which left him with a considerable amount of time to proselytize other employees. Also, the record discloses that the rule with regard to the destruction of saleable merchandise was considered by the Company, and was understood by the employees, to be of cardi- nal importance. It is understandable that in the successful operation of a produce business considerable care must be exercised to avoid waste. It is concluded from the record that a breach of the rule was considered by the Company, and Julian, in particular, to be in the nature of a venial, if not a mortal, sin. It is concluded that the discharge was the result of Julian's angry reaction to the discovery of Ebert's breach of the company rule. General Counsel contends in his brief that the list of seven items of misconduct which was given to Ebert prior to his dis- charge contradicts the contention by Respondent that he was discharged for vio- lating the abovementioned rule. However, the credited testimony of Julian and Hoyt discloses that Julian gave Hoyt the order to fire Ebert without any statement of his reason and it appears appropriate to conclude that the acts of misconduct (including the action of throwing away the apples and peppers) on the list given to Ebert were supplied by Hoyt and Cross, the store manager, as their explanation for Julian's decision. Therefore, it is concluded that Julian's decision to fire Ebert was not for a pretextual reason, but for what he considered good cause. Conse- quently, it is found that General Counsel has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Ebert's discharge was discriminatorily motivated. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record of the case, I make the following: Conclusions of Law 1. By the statements contained in speeches made by William Golub on De- cember 12 and 15, Respondents engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion of their employees within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, as alleged in paragraph 8(c) of the complaint in this case. 2. General Counsel failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any of the other allegations of unfair labor practices in the complaint. There will next be considered the issues raised in Case 3-CA-2654 which involves the Company's store in North Troy, New York. Thereafter there will be set forth in this Decision the recommended remedies and Recommended Order with respect to both cases heard in this proceeding. B. Case 3-CA-2654 (the North Troy store) It is alleged in the complaint in this case that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union after it had been certified as the bargaining representative of the employees of the North Troy store in representation proceedings in Case 3-RC-3531.17 Summary of Proceedings in Case 3-RC-3531 A petition for certification as representative was filed in said case by the Union on November 9, 1964, for following described unit: All regular full-time and regular part-time employees employed at the Respondents' retail store at 6 102d Street, North Troy, New York, but excluding all store managers, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. As indicated hereinabove , Golub made reference to the Union's use of an employee for that purpose, labeling him as a "little bigshot " 17 Although only the Central Markets Operating Co was named as employer in said proceedings, it was found hereinabove that it and the other Respondent herein are a single employer. CENTRAL MARKETS 515 Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election was held on or about December 16, 1964, at which the majority of employees of Re- spondents in the unit described above, by secret ballot conducted under the super- vision of the Regional Director for Region 3, designated and selected the Union as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with Respondents. Respondents filed objections to the election which objections the Regional Direc- tor recommended be overruled by the Board. He further recommended that certification of representation be issued. Thereafter, on March 30, 1965, the Board issued its Decision which adopted the Regional Director's findings and recommendations and certified the Union as the collective-bargaining representa- tive of the above described unit which was deemed to be appropriate. The Issues Involved in Case 3-CA-2654 The record reveals that on April 26, 1965, the Union by letter to the Com- pany, requested a meeting "for the purpose of negotiating a labor contract." By letter dated April 29, 1965, the Company declined the request, stating as reason therefor the following: A serious question of law with respect to the National Labor Board's deci- sion on the request for review by the employer as to the conduct of the election at that store is being raised by the employer. Since the only way of challenging a decision of the Board is by bringing the matter to a head through subsidiary and subsequent hearings, we are compelled to take this position. The record reveals that the Respondents admit all of the facts alleged in the complaint in this case, but deny the conclusions of law therein predicated upon such facts. The record also reveals that the only purpose of said denial was to test the validity of the certification of the Union. The Respondents offered no evidence in this proceeding with respect to -this case, but indicated that they were relying upon the record in the representation proceeding. Under well established law I am bound by the Board's ruling in the aforesaid representation proceeding and by the certification. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The unfair labor practices of Respondents found to have been committed by them in section III, hereinabove, occurring in connection with the business opera- tion of Respondents described in section I, hereinabove , have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondents engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and that they ,take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be further recommended that a notice (Appendix A) with respect to the unfair labor practices found to have been committed in Case 3-CA-2567 be posted not only in the store in Glens Falls, New York, involved in the said .case but also in all other stores of the Company where the employees thereof heard a speech by William Golub similar in substance to the speech delivered by him before the employees of said Glens Falls store. The record reveals that simi- lar speeches were delivered by Golub to employees of other stores in the Com- pany's chain. However, the record does not disclose which of said stores they were, and, therefore, it will be left to the Regional Director for Region 3 to deter- mine, in the compliance stage, in which stores said notice should be posted. It will also be recommended that a notice (Appendix B) be posted in the North Troy store with respect to the unfair labor practices found to have been com- mitted in Case 3-CA-2654. Based upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (1) On March 30, 1965, the Union was certified by the Board as the exclu- sive bargaining representative for the following appropriate unit : all regular full- time and regular part-time employees employed at the Respondents ' retail store 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD located at 6 102d Street, North Troy, New York, but excluding all store man- agers, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) At all times since March 30, 1965, the Union has been the exclusive repre- sentative of the above-described unit for purposes of collective bargaining. (3) Commencing on or about April 29, 1965 and at all times thereafter, Respond- ents refused, and have continued to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the above- described unit. (4) By said refusal, Respondents engaged in, and are engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that: the Golub Corporation and Central Markets Operating Co., Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: (1) Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering, restraining, and coercing employees by implying that, as an inevitable result of employees selecting Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Butcher Work- men and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO, as their collective-bargaining representative they would suffer a loss of privileges and economic detriment. (b) Refusing to bargain with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Butcher Workmen and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of employees in the following appropriate unit: all regular full-time and regular part-time employees employed in their retail store located at 6 102d Street, North Troy, New York, but excluding all store man- agers, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed to be necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the ex- clusive representative of all employees in the above-described unit, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. Post at their store in Glens Falls, New York, as well as at such other of their stores as may be designated by the Regional Director of Region 3,18 copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A"; and post at their store in North Troy, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 19 Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being signed by Respondents' repre- sentatives, shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason- able steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith2e .is It is recommended in the section hereinabove titled "V . The Remedy" that the addi- tional store or stores be determined by the Regional Director 11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words, "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notices . In the further event that the Board 's Order be 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." 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 from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith." CENTRAL MARKETS 517 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint in Case 3-CA-2567 be dis- missed except for the violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act set forth in para- graph 8(c) which were alleged and were found to have been committed by Golub. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees by implying that, as an inevitable result of their selection of Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Butcher Workmen and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO, as their collective-bargaining representative, they would suffer a loss of privileges and economic detriment. - WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named labor organization, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming or remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement atuhorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as aforesaid. - THE GOLUB CORPORATION, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) CENTRAL MARKETS OPERATING CO., INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post- ing, 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, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Tele- phone 842-3100. APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the 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, upon request, bargain with Amalgamated Meat Cutters , Butcher Workmen and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the appropriate unit described hereinbelow, and if an agreement is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The appropriate unit is as follows: All regular full-time and regular part-time employees employed at our retail store located at 6 102d Street, North Troy, New York, but exclud- ing all store managers, office clerical employees , watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce employees the exercise of their protected rights by refusing to bargain with the aforesaid Union as the representative of the employees in the above described unit. WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above -named labor organization, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos - ing or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such, activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree- ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming or remaining members of the above-named, or any other, labor organization except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as aforesaid. THE GOLUB CORPORATION, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------ (Representative ) ( Title) CENTRAL MARKETS OPERATING CO., 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, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Tele- phone 842-3100. Puritana Manufacturing Corporation and International Ladies Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Case 24-CA-2094. June 16, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On February 28, 1966, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a. brief in support thereof. The Gen- eral Counsel also filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. 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. 159 NLRB No. 45.