Spartans Industries, Inc.

SPARTAN-ATLANTIC DEPT. Spartans Industries, Inc. and Texas-Oklahoma Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Amer- ica, AFL-CIO and Local 455, Retail Clerks Inter- national Association, AFL-CIO, Party to the Con- tract. Case 23-CA-2497 January 24, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On September 20, 1967, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls issued her Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Party to the Contract filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. The Charging Party filed cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion and, thereafter, the Respondent filed a brief in answer and in opposition to the cross-exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has dele- gated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the 'Trial Examiner at the hearing t 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications noted below.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or- ders that the Respondent, Spartans Industries, Inc., San Antonio, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Delete paragraph 2(b) and reletter paragraphs 2(c) and (d) as paragraphs 2(b) and (c), respectively. 2. Insert the following paragraph to precede the first indented paragraph in the notice:' "After a trial in which all parties had the opportu- nity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law 309 and has ordered us to post this notice and to keep the promises that we make in this notice." I At the hearing, the facts constituting the record were stipulated to by the parties. 2 We agree with the Trial Examiner that the evidence presented in this case does not support the reimbursement remedy requested by the Charg- ing Party. Nor do we view the findings in this case as sufficient to support the contingent reimbursement remedy provided in paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. a In accord with the request of the Charging Party and our recent deci- sions in Bilyeu Motor Corp, 161 NLRB 982, and Macy's Missouri-Kan- sas Division, 162 NLRB 754, we shall amend the notice which Respon- dent is required to sign and post. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE FANNIE M. BoYLS, Trial Examiner : Pursuant to charges filed on September 9 and December 2,1966, and -on January 9, 1967 , by Texas-Oklahoma Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , AFL-CIO, herein called the Amalgamated , a complaint was issued on January 13, 1967, against Spartan-Atlantic Dept. Stores; Spartan's Industries , Inc., herein called Respondent. I The complaint alleges that Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act by recognizing, en- tering into a contract with, and otherwise assisting Local 455, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 455, at Respondent's new Military Drive store in San Antonio, Texas , at a time when Local 455 did not represent an uncoerced majority of the em- ployees and when there was pending before the National Labor Relations Board a representation petition filed by Amalgamated covering those employees. At the hearing held before me in San Antonio, Texas, on May 11 and 12, 1967, the parties stipulated as to facts constituting the record in this case. Each thereafter filed a very helpful brief. Upon the stipulated record and a careful consideration of the briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a New York corporation, having its principal office and place of business in the State of New York and operating a chain of retail stores and manufac- turing plants in several States, including four stores in San Antonio, Texas. At all times material herein, Respondent has purchased annually goods, valued in excess of $50,000 which have been shipped to San Antonio from points outside the State of Texas and its annual gross dol- lar volume of retail sales has exceeded $500,000. It is conceded, and I find, that Respondent is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED It was stipulated and I find that both Amalgamated and Local 455 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ' It was stipulated at the hearing that the correct name of Respondent is Spartans Industries, Inc., of which Spartan Department Stores is a divi- sion 169 NLRB No. 47 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED The issue presented is whether, under the circum- stances of this case, Respondent properly treated the em- loyees of a newly acquired store in San Antonio, Texas, as an accretion to a two-store unit already represented by Local 455, despite the pendency before the National Labor Relations Board of a representation petition filed by Amalgamated and the claim of Amalgamated, which already represented the employees of Respondent's third San Antonio store, that it represented the employees of the new store. The relevant evidentiary facts, to which the parties stipulated, may be summarized as follows: Prior to March 1966, Respondent operated two retail establishments in San Antonio, one at 70 Military Drive, and the other at 2902 Goliad Road, which employed about 84 and 86 employees, respectively. The employees of these stores were, at all relevant times, and remain covered by a collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and Local 455. This agreement, by its terms, was to "embrace all present and future retail establish- ments of the Employer situated within the San Antonio, Texas, Metropolitan area." On or about March 11, 1966, as the result of a merger with Atlantic Thrift Centers, Inc. (herein called Atlantic), Respondent acquired a number of retail establishments throughout the country, including one at 3826 Fredericksburg Road in San Antonio which employed ap- proximately 77 employees. The employees of this store were, at all relevant times, and remain covered by a col- lective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and Amalgamated. This agreement, like that of Local 455, purported to cover all employees in the bargaining unit "now employed or hereafter to be employed in the Em- ployer's present and future establishments located in Greater Metropolitan San Antonio, Texas Trading Area." At the time of the merger, Atlantic had signed a lease for a second retail establishment to be located at 1047 Military Drive, S.E., in San Antonio. This establishment, which will herein be referred to as the new store, was opened for business by Respondent on or about August 15, 1966, and it has at all relevant times employed ap- proximately 112 employees. It is the representation of employees at this store which has brought about the con- troversy here in issue. On or about July 7, 1966, more than a month prior to the opening of the new store, Sidney Mittleman, president of Respondent's Spartan Department Stores, caused identical letters to be sent to Amalgamated and to Retail Clerks International, the parent body of Local 455, which stated in relevant part: In view of this Company's historical collective- bargaining relationship with both the Amalgamated . and the Retail Clerks .... and in response to the inquiries and expressions of interest of those Unions, this letter will confirm the established policy of neutrality which Spartans Industries, Inc. will con-' tinue to follow with respect to union representation of its employees at new stores which may be opened from time to time.... The Company's position with respect to its new stores, in keeping with its established policy of neutrality, may be summarized as follows: ... In metropolitan areas in which the Company at present ... has both "Spartan" and "Atlantic LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thrift" stores, the Company will not recognize a union for collective-bargaining purposes unless and until it is clearly established that the union represents a majority of the employees in an appropriate store- wide bargaining unit... . On this basis, you will note that ... the question of union representation of the employees of the new Cleveland, Dallas, and San Antonio stores will be resolved upon establishment of majority status among the employees of each of these stores. The Company intends to recruit personnel for the new stores through state employment agencies, where possible. Only if such state agencies cannot supply a sufficient number of qualified employees for the new store, will the Company advertise for new employees. Unless recruitment of new personnel is insufficient to meet staffing and training require- ments, floor and stock employees of existing stores will not be transferred or assigned to new stores in those metropolitan areas in which the Company has both "Spartan" and "Atlantic Thrift" stores. In order to assure that local store management ac- tions are completely consistent with the Company's established position of neutrality, detailed Guide Lines for Store Management and a form of Notice To Employees have been prepared. A copy of the guide lines and notice to employees were attached to the letter. Each stated, inter alia, that no union representative would be permitted to enter the premises of a store for union organizational purposes. Despite Respondent's neutrality letter, however, Local 455, on or about August 1, 1966, submitted to the area supervisor at the new store two grievances, alleging that Respondent had violated its agreement with Local 455 by hiring employees at the new store" at wages below the minimum provided in the agreement and by refusing per- mission of its union representatives to visit the new store. On August 4, Local 455 notified Respondent's personnel manager in Houston, Texas, by telegram, that Local 455 wished to proceed to the third step of its grievance procedure in regard to the two grievances it had filed. By telegram dated August 12, it demanded of the personnel manager that all terms of its collective-bargaining agree- ment be extended to the new store. On August 12, Amalgamated sent to Respondent, at its New York office, a telegram stating that Amalgamated had filed with the National Labor Relations Board a representation petition covering the employees of the new San Antonio store and warned that any attempt by Respondent to recognize any other union for the em- ployees of that store, without an election, would result in unfair labor practice charges being filed. The petition to which Amalgamated referred in the telegram was actually filed on Monday, August 15, and copies were served upon Respondent and Local 455 on or about the same date. This petition is being held in abeyance by the Board pending the disposition of the issues raised in this proceeding. By letter dated September 6, 1966, a copy of which was given to Amalgamated on or about September 8, Charles C. Bassine, chairman of the board of Respon- dent, notified Local 455, inter alia, that it was recognizing the employees of the new store as an accretion to the two- store unit already represented by Local 455 and was putting into effect at the new store all the terms and con- ditions of Local 455's contract. Since on or about Sep- tember 6, Respondent has maintained and enforced its SPARTAN-ATLANTIC DEPT. 311 collective-bargaining agreement with Local 455 with respect to a bargaining unit comprised of Respondent's two old Spartan stores and the new store , pursuant to which agreement Local 455 is recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative.2 Prior to September 8, Respondent had not notified representatives of the Amalgamated that its position re- garding the new store was other than as stated in its July 7 neutrality letter. On or about September 9, Respondent, at two em- ployee meetings, one for the day shift and one for the night shift, advised employees at the new store that Respondent's,contract with Local 455 applied to the new store and that Respondent had recognized Local 455 as the exclusive bargaining agent for employees of that store. On or about the same date , representatives of Local 455, with the permission of Respondent, talked to employees in the employees ' lounge in the rear of the store, individually or in small groups. During those con- versations, Local 455 representatives asked employees to sign union-membership applications and dues-deduc- tion authorizations. On that date and thereafter a number of employees signed them . Based on -the dues-deduction authorizations , Respondent deducted dues from the em- ployees' pay and transmitted the same to Local 455. Eighty-one employees signed such dues-deduction authorizations for the month of September 1966. No bargaining unit employees at the new store have ever been transferred to it from either of Respondent's two Spartan stores ; nor have any of such new store em- ployees been transferred to either of the Spartan stores. All employees of the new store were hired either through the Texas Employment Commission or directly at the store. All of Respondent's stores, including the Atlantic store, are subject to a common labor relations policy, which is formulated on a centralized basis. All have com- mon advertising and follow the same pricing and merchandising policies, which are also formulated on a centralized basis. All of the stores are within the territory of a single area supervisor , who is responsible for effec- tuating the centrally formulated labor relations and other policies. At the store level, the store manager in each of said stores is responsible for the administration of the aforementioned centrally formulated labor relations and other policies on a day-to-day basis.3 The store manager of each store is a supervisor within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(11) of the Act. He has authority to hire and fire em- ployees and exercises that'authority. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS In determining whether Respondent acted lawfully in treating its new store as an accretion to the unit compris- ing the employees of its two Spartan stores despite the pendency before -the Board of a representation petition, there must be decided herein whether a real question con- cerning representation of the employees at the new store existed at the time Respondent took such action. A resolution of this issue requires a consideration of the ap- propriateness of -the bargaining unit under the circum- stances of this case. Section 9(b) of the Act states that "the Board shall de- cide in each case whether, in order to insure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising their rights guaranteed by this Act, the unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof." Through the years, the Board has devleoped certain principles and policies which it applies in making these unit determinations. In situations in which an employer has more than one plant in a geographical or administrative area, the Board has long held that a single plant unit, being one of the unit types specifically mentioned in the statute, is "presump- tively appropriate" while recognizing that multiplant units may also be appropriate or even more appropriate, depending upon the facts of each case.4 The Board now applies to retail chain stores the same principles in unit determinations which it applies to multiplant enterprises, generally.5 The Board , however, has always recognized that there may frequently be more than one appropriate unit and its problem has been to determine which unit at a given time and under particular circumstances may be the most appropriate. Among the factors generally considered by the Board in determining whether a single retail store unit is ap- propriate or, whether that store should more appropriately be considered as an accretion to or part of a broader unit in the retail chain are: the history of collective bargaining; the extent of centralized and local managerial control over labor relations and store policies; the geographical proximity of the stores to each other ; the frequency of an interchange of employees between the stores; and whether any union is seeking a more limited or broader unit than the unit proposed . The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 140 NLRB 1011, 1021; Spartan Department Stores, 140 NLRB 608, 610; Weis Markets, Inc., 142 NLRB 708, 710. Here practically all the factors cited by Respondent and Local 455 as 'supporting the appropriateness of a three-store unit comprising the two Spartan stores and the new store - the geographic location of all stores within San Antonio, the centralized common labor rela- tions and other policies administered by a single area su- pervisor, and the same pricing and merchandising policies in all stores -would just as forcibly support an argument for the appropriateness of a four-store unit embracing all L At the time of the hearing a new contract between Local 455 and Respondent covering the three stores had been negotiated and was await- ing execution 3 In view of the above (contained in paragraph 16 of the stipulation), it is not clear what is meant by afurther statement (contained in paragraph 6 of the stipulation) that Respondent has at all times maintained and operated the new store substantially in accord with its practices applicable to Spartan stores rather than in accordance with practices applicable to Atlantic Thrift stores, including the acquired one in San Antonio. 4 Temco Aircraft Corporation, 121 NLRB 1085, 1088, fn. 11, Dixie Belle Mills, Inc, 13 9 NLRB 629, 631. 5 There was a period prior to 1962 when the Board treated retail chain stores as different from multiplant units and regarded all such stores in the employer's administrative division or geographical area as appropriate, absent unusual circumstances. Safeway Stores, Inc., 96 NLRB 998, 1000; Jewel Food Stores, 111 NLRB 1368, 1372, Robert Hall Clothes, 118 NLRB 1096, 1098, Daw Drug Co., Inc., 127 NLRB 1316, 1319. But since 1962 the Board has been treating retail chain stores ,as similar to multiplant enterprises generally and has found single store units ap- propriate unless countervailing factors indicated a broader unit was more appropriate Sav-On Drugs, Inc, 138 NLRB 1032; Frisch's Big Boy Ill- Mar, Inc., 147 NLRB 551, enforcement denied 356 F.2d 895 (C A 7); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc, 143 NLRB 848, enfd. 341 F.2d 750 (C.A. 6), cert. denied 382 U.S 830, P Ballantine & Sons, 141 NLRB 1103, 1107; Davis Cafeteria, Inc., 160 NLRB 1141; Purity Food Stores, Inc. (Sav- MorFood Stores), 150 NLRB 1523, 160 NLRB 651 , enforcement denied 376 F 2d 497 (C.A 1), now pending on Board's petition for certiorari to Supreme Court [cert. denied 389 U S. 959]. 312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Respondent's stores in the San Antonio area or a two- store unit embracing the employees of the new store and those of the Atlantic store (units which no one has yet sought). On the other hand, there are factors pointing to the ap- propriateness of a single store unit for employees of the new store. Respondent already operates one of its stores in its San Antonio administrative area as a single store unit. There has been no interchange of unit employees between the new store and any of Respondent's other San Antonio stores and this is pursuant to a policy of Re- spondent expressed in its neutrality letter of July 7. Each store has its own store manager who is responsible for the administration on a day-to-day basis in his own store of the centrally formulated labor relations and other poli- cies. This store manager has authority to and does hire and fire the employees at his store. Moreover, prior to recognizing Local 455 as the bargaining representative of employees at the new store and extending the terms of its contract with that union to employees of the new store, Respondent did not pay them the same wages as those paid at the Spartan stores . Furthermore, Respondent's past practice and policy , as expressed in its July 7 letter to both unions, has been to deny accretion to either preexisting units without an election. Here, it seems to me, the one most significant factor pointing to the appropriateness of a single store unit rather than a broader unit at this time is the existence of Respondent's contracts with two different unions cover- ing separate units of employees of its two Spartan stores and its one Atlantic store in the San Antonio administra- tive and geographical area. The existence of these two units represented by different unions would preclude a finding at this time that one unit coextensive with Respondent's administrative division in the San Antonio area is appropriate. In my view, the existence of these two units which are only fragments of a potentially ap- propriate administrative area unit, also precludes a find- ing that the new store employees may be accreted to either of those two units unless the employees of the new store freely choose representation by a union represent- ing one of the two existing units. In the circumstances of this case, it appears peculiarly appropriate to let the employees of the new store deter- mine whether they desire to be represented and, if so, by what union.6 I find that a unit composed of Respondent's employees at its new store is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining and that the representation petition filed by Amalgamated on or about August 15, 1966, raised a real question concerning representation. Since a real question concerning representation existed at the time Amalgamated filed its representation petition, Respondent was obligated under established legal princi- ples to maintain a position of neutrality with respect to the representation claims of the two rival unions pending a resolution of the representation question by the Board. Midwest Piping & Supply Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060; Shea Chemical Corporation, 121 NLRB 1027. By recog- nizing Local 455 as the bargaining representative of em- ployees of the new store, extending the provisions of Local 455's contract to those employees and informing them that Respondent had recognized Local 455 as their bargaining representative and extended the terms of its contract to them - all at a time when Amalgamated's 6 Cf. Frostco Super Save Stores, Inc., 138 NLRB 125, 129; Masters- Lake Success, Inc., 124 NLRB 580, 592, enfd. as modified 287 F.2d 35 representation petition was pending before the Board and at a time when, so far as the record shows, none of the new store employees had designated Local 455 as their bargaining representative - Respondent breached its obligation of neutrality and unlawfully assisted and sup- ported Local 455 within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1 ) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Signal Oil and Gas Co., 303 F.2d 785 (C.A. 5); N.L.R.B. v. National Container Corp., 211 F.2d 525, 536 (C.A. 2). Respondent, moreover, furnished further unlawful assistance and sup- port to Local 455 by thereafter giving Local 455 union representatives the use of the employees ' lounge in the rear of the new store for the purpose of soliciting applica- tions for membership and union-dues-deduction authorizations and thereafter deducting dues and trans- mitting them to Local 455, despite the fact that Respond- ent had on July 7 informed Amalgamated and Local 455, as well as all the employees, that it would not permit any union representative to enter the store premises for or- ganizational purposes. Salmirs Oil Company, 139 NLRB 25, 26; Star-Lite Electronics Corp., 154 NLRB 1822, 1833. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By recognizing Local 455 as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of employees at Respondent's new San Antonio store, extending its contract with Local 455 to employees of that store and otherwise supporting Local 455, at a time when Local 455 did not represent an un- coerced majority of said employees and when a genuine question concerning representation existed with respect to employees of the new store, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act, my Recommended Order will require that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since it has been found that Respondent has unlawfully assisted and supported Local 455, the latter cannot be considered the free and uncoerced choice of employees at the new store. It follows that any contract between Local 455 and Respondent which purports to cover the employees of the new store must be set aside and that Respondent must be required to withhold recognition from Local 455 as the representative of employees of the new store unless and until that labor organization. has been certified by the Board as the employees' bargaining representative. In view of the assistance and support given by Respondent to Local 455 in its organizational at- tempts, Respondent will also be required to cease recog- nizing and giving effect to all dues-checkoff authoriza- tions in behalf of Local 455 executed by employees of the new store prior to the date of compliance with this Recommended Order. Jomar Metal Finishing Corp., 147 (C.A. 2); Food Fair Stores, Inc., 138 NLRB 1; Pullman Industries, Inc., 159 NLRB 580. SPARTAN-ATLANTIC DEPT. 313 NLRB 1055, 1059. Nothing herein, however, shall be construed as requiring Respondent to vary any wage or other substantive feature of its relations with employees of the new store which Respondent has established in the performance of the contract or contracts with Local 455. Amalgamated requests that in addition to the remedy above prescribed, Respondent should be required to reimburse those new store employees who signed dues deduction authorizations for the amount of dues deducted by Respondent from their paychecks and transmitted to Local 455. However, under all the circumstances of this case - particularly the fact that Texas has a right-to-work law and that Local 455's contract therefore presumably does not contain a union-security provision which would require employees to pay dues - it is not deemed ap- propriate in this case to grant the reimbursement remedy requested by Amalgamated, except as to any dues Re- spondent may continue to check off after the receipt of my Recommended Order, Local 60, United Brotherhood of Carpenters [Mechanical Handling Systems] v. N.L.R.B. 365 U.S. 651; Keller Ladders Southern, Inc., 161 NLRB 21; East Tennessee Packing Co., 153 NLRB 1257, 1262-63. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is ordered that Respondent , Spartan's Indus- tries, Inc., Spartan Department Stores, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Furnishing assistance or support to Local 455, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees at its new San Antonio store. (b) Recognizing Local 455 as the representative of any of the new store employees for the purpose of dealing with them concerning grievances, labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other terms or con- ditions of employment, unless and until the National Labor Relations Board shall certify Local 455 as such representative. (c) Giving effect to its agreement with Local 455 covering employees of its new San Antonio store, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any superseding agreement , unless and until Local 455 shall have been certified by the Board as the representative of said employees ; but nothing herein shall be construed as requiring Respondent to vary or abandon any wage or other substantive feature of its relations with said employees , which it has established in the per- formance of such agreements , or prejudice the assertion by said employees of any rights they may have thereunder. (d) Giving effect to any checkoff authorizations heretofore executed by its new San Antonio store em- ployees, authorizing the deduction of periodic dues, ini- tiation fees, or assessments from wages for remittance to Local 455, prior to the date of compliance with this Order. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its new San Antonio store em- ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 455 as the exclusive bargaining representative of em- ployees at its new San Antonio store, unless and until said labor organization shall have been certified as such representative by the Board. (b) Reimburse employees of its new San Antonio store for any periodic dues, initiation fees, or assessments which it may, subsequent to the date of receipt of this Decision, deduct from said employees' pay for transmit- tal to Local 455 pursuant to authorizations already ex- ecuted by them prior to said date. (c) Post at its new San Antonio store copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by an authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.8 ' 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 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 Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 8 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify said Regional Director, in wasting , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respon- dent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer 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 em- ployees that: WE WILL NOT assist or support Local 455, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT give effect to or operate under any agreement with Local 455 covering employees of this store unless and until the National Labor Rela- tions Board shall have certified that union as your bargaining representative. This does not mean, how- ever, that we will take away from you any wage in- crease or change any condition of your employment merely because it may have been required under a term of Local 455's contract. 314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT give effect to any dues-checkoff card which you may have signed , authorizing us to deduct union dues from your wages and pay them to Local 455. WE WILL withdraw and withhold recognition from Local 455 as your bargaining representative and will not recognize it or any other union as your bargaining representative unless and until such union has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as your representative. All of you are free to join or support , or not to join or support , any union. SPARTANS INDUSTRIES, INC. SPARTAN DEPARTMENT STORES (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, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone 228-0611.