Falkowski Grocery

FALKOWSKI GROCERY Falkowski Grocery and Retail Clerks Local Union No. 1116, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL- CIO. Case 18-CA-5429 May 25, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELIO On February 16, 1978, Administrative Law Judge George Norman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings. and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Falkowski Grocery, Vir- ginia, Minnesota, its officers. agents. successors. and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF tHF- CASE GEORGE NORMAN. Administrative Law Judge: This case came to hearing in Virginia, Minnesota. on August 25, 1977. The charge was filed by Retail Clerks Local Union No. 1116, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL CIO (herein called the Union). The complaint, which is- sued on July 22, 1977. alleges that Falkowski Grocery (herein called Respondent) violated Section 8(a)( 1 ) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.' Issues The primary issues are: I. Is Respondent a member of a multiemployer bargain- ing group, the Area Retail Grocers Association, formed for the purpose of negotiating a collective-bargaining agree- ment with the Union? 2. Did the Union and the multiemployer bargaining group negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement covering employees of Respondent and other employer members of the Association in a unit of full-time and regular part-time and utility employees represented by the Union? 3. Has Respondent refused to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union by failing and refusing to sign and apply the collective-bargaining agreement described above? The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to produce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs, which have been carefully considered. were filed on behalf of the General Counsel and Respondent. Upon the entire record of the case, and from my obser- vation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I IHE BtUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Frank Falkowski and Helen Falkowski are copartners doing business under the trade name of Falkowski Gro- cers. Falkowski Grocery has maintained its principal office and place of business in Virginia, Minnesota, and has been engaged in the operation of a retail grocery store selling mneats, groceries. and related products. During the 12- month period ending June 30, 1977, Respondent. in the course and conduct of its business operations, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to its store goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000. of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and delivered to its store in Virginia, Minnesota, directls from points located outside the State of Minnesota. or were transported and delivered to said store in Virginia, Minne- sota, and received from other enterprises located in the State of Minnesota, each of which other enterprises re- ceived the said goods and materials delivered to them di- rectly from points located outside the State of Minnesota. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce with- in the meaning of Section 2(2). (6), and (7) of the Act. I During the proceedings, counsel for the General Counsel moved to amend par. 5 of the complaint to read as follows: All full-time and regular part-lime and utihty emplhiees empl oced by the employer members of a multl-emplo(ser hargainine group coil- posed of certain members of the Area Retail Grocers Aissitclll,,n talid other grocer employers who authorize Daniel Mundt to ba;rgain for this group. excluding store managers, meat department employees. u.clh- men. guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. constitutes . unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mcan- 11 Ili I ABOR ORGANIZA&LION INVOLVED Retail Clerks L.ocal Union No. 1116, Retail Clerks Inter- incg of SCtlOil 9hb oif tIhc ict ()er th.e rhle ioln of Ihe Respondenl. the motlon to amend as, granted io confiorm the I.ledllng to Ihe testimons that the mulliemployer group con- ,ited 11oI tllls of ilembhers of the Areal Retail (;rocers Aissoclatlol hbut Of al leIat ne oilthe phr enplocr shi ;olsAo authorized Mundt to hargain foi hint and the ,lIher,, a, . rouip 236 NLRB No. 60 473 DECISIONS OF NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD national Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. I11. THlE ALL EGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Aiea Retail Grocers Association (herein called the Association) is composed of member-employers in the re- tail grocery business. The employers have grocery stores that serve the public selling a complete line of products that would normally be found in any grocery store: i.e., milk, bread, meat, and all kinds of general merchandise. Some stores are small, running from 2,500 to 4,000 square feet; others are large and run up as high as 15,000 to 18,000 square feet. Daniel H. Mundt, who represents the Association, is an attorney in private practice whose offices are located in Duluth, Minnesota, and whose practice is in North and South Dakota, northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and northern Michigan. In the conduct of his practice, Mundt has negotiated in excess of 5,000 collective-bargain- ing agreements over a period of 21 years. Mundt represents the Association in negotiating contracts with the Union involved herein. The members of the Association have from I employee to as many as 150 employees, depending on volume of business. Although the Association has an executive secretary located in Duluth, Minnesota, Mundt. who negotiates collective-bargaining contracts for the members of the Association, is not employed by the Asso- ciation. The grocers, on an individual basis, have author- ized Mundt to represent them as a group both in negotia- tions and in the application and interpretation of collective-bargaining contracts that normally have run for periods of 3 years.2 On November 7, 1976, Frank Falkowski, on behalf of Respondent, signed the following form which was sent to him by Mundt: Authorization Form We hereby authorize the law firm of Van Evera, Mundt, Koskinen, Clure & Andrew, in the person of Daniel H. Mundt, to represent the undersigned store in the negotiations with the Retail Clerks Union Local No. 1116 and the Meat Cutters and Butchers Union Local No. 12 for the 1977 negotiations. We under- stand that this authorization includes the authority to negotiate changes in language and cost items with re- spect to labor contracts involving these unions. We further represent that we have the following em- ployees on a part time and full time basis covered by contract with the Retail Clerks Union and the Meat Cutters and Butchers Union. Retail Clerks Union: Full time employees: one Part time employees: one Butchers Union. Full time employees: 0 2 he application and interpretation of the contracts after the negotia- tions have been completed has been done from time to time by separate retainer on an indivdual or group basis. Part time employees: 0 We further agree to share the costs and expenses of negotiation and legal work on a pro-rata basis. Dated this 7 day of Nov., 1976. Name of Store: Falkowski MKT By /s/ Frank Falkowski 3 In connection with the collective-bargaining agreement under consideration, copies of this document were sent by Mundt to all of the grocer-members of the Association be- fore the commencement of negotiations. Over the past 20 years forms containing identical language have been sent to the various members of the Association, including Fal- kowski.4 In the late summer or early fall of 1976, Mundt sent out the authorization forms described above to the members of the Association because the contract was about to expire on April 15, 1977. Forms were sent out with the purpose that negotiations would start as early as possible hoping to arrive at a collective-bargaining agreement on or before the expiration date, April 15, of the then existing agreement. As it turned out an agreement was settled upon by the time the then existing contract expired. Mundt worked closely with the policy committee which consisted of certain members of the Association. At the request of Mundt, Frank Falkowski became a member of the policy committee and remained a member up through the negotiations of the contract involved in this proceed- ing. As a member of the policy committee Falkowski was one of the most active participants, giving his counsel and advice during the entire period of negotiations. In preparations for negotiations, Mundt met from time to time with members of the Association in group meetings in addition to meeting with the policy committee. Those meetings were usually held in the conference room in Mundt's law offices in Duluth. The meetings were attended by from 8 to as many as 20 people. Falkowski, who was considered by Mundt to be a good policy committee mem- ber, attended and participated in almost all of the meet- ings. Each employer-member of the policy committee was free to express his views without limitation and regardless of the number of unit employees in his employ. Not only was the policy committee engaged in an advisory function to the chief negotiator Mundt, but it was also involved in the formulating of proposals and counterproposals. Except for one occasion during the latest negotiations, no member of the policy committee participated in the bargaining at the bargaining table. If the policy committee authorized Mundt to take a certain course of action, he considered that to be his mandate to proceed accordingly. On April 16, 1977, upon completion of the latest negotia- tions, Mundt signed a collective-bargaining agreement on behalf of the Area Retail Grocers Association. That con- tract had been approved unanimously by the policy com- mittee before Mundt affixed his signature to it.5 Exh. 3 4 In billing the members of the Association for his services, Mundt billed them on a proportional basis depending upon the number of employees a particular member then had in his employ. 'On April 6. 1977. the policy committee met. and the 18 employer repre- 474 FALKOWSKI GROCERY The past practice has been that once Mundt negotiated a contract he would contact all of the individual employers and tell them that the contract had been settled. He testi- fied that he wrote to inform them that the contract had been settled, and to set up a meeting, usually in Duluth or in their area, to discuss the contract "page by page, para- graph by paragraph, sentence by sentence and word by word, literally." Mundt would go through the whole con- tract from beginning to end and highlight the changes that had been made and sometimes answer questions about the contract language. He would then obtain from the em- ployers their individual signatures to the contract. Mundt further testified that he did not think that the signing of the contract by any of the members would be a problem be- cause he said that in the meeting of April 6, "we had an excellent representation from the policy committee and, in fact, had a meeting that. . . eighteen people attended." Never during the course of negotiations over a period of years has any member of the Association refused to sign a contract negotiated by Mundt on their behalf. Falkowski never indicated prior to the last negotiating session leading to the contract in question that he was not bound by what Mundt was doing. Nor was Mundt informed either orally or in writing by Falkowski that he did not intend to be bound. At no time did Falkowski prior to the completion of negotiations for the agreement in question indicate that he did not intend to be bound. At no time did Falkowski, either orally or in writing, indicate that he no longer wished to participate as a member of the multi-employer bargain- ing group.7 On April 26, following the negotiations, Mundt had a meeting with the Association members in Duluth to discuss the new contract. Falkowski was present at that meeting. Following Mundt's presentation concerning the contract, Mundt was approached by Falkowski who expressed con- cern with the rate of increase of wages in the agreement. Mundt told Falkowski that he would go back with the Union "to see if it was possible to get something on a different basis for the small stores." 8 Mundt did go back to the Union and the Union agreed to increase the wage dif- ferential between the small stores and the big stores. Mundt then communicated the change to Falkowski and the other small store operators.9 Analysis and Conclusions Respondent contends that "the Area Retail Grocers As- sentatives at that meeting, including Falkouski. authorized Mundt to sign the final proposed contract Falkowski denied he voted In favor of the sign- ing. but admitted that a majority of those present voted to approse and that majorit) rule controlled At the commencement of each negotiation for a new contract. Mundt informed the Union as to whom he represented. naming each member of the Association ' In addition to refusing to sign or be bound by the contract. Falkowiskl sent Mundt a handwritten letter in the early part of Jula 1977, telling him he was not going to be a part of the Association ans longer, and that Mundt should not regard him as a client or represent him ' The contract provisions divide the stores into three segments based on volume of business in consideration of the smaller operator In every negotiation in the past the parties had gotten together and negotiated certain changes to the already agreed upon contract sociation as an informal, segmented group of employers, each of which segments have bargaining separately with the Union, is not such a multi-employer association that will bind an independent, small grocery to any contract allegedly accepted by Mr. Mundt." The evidence is clear that the Area Retail Grocers Association which has been in existence for over 20 years, representing Respondent and other member-employers, is not "an informal segmented group of employers, each of which segments have bar- gained separately with the Union," but is in fact a group of employers in a related business whose employees are repre- sented by one Union, and who have found it mutually ad- vantageous to bargain with that Union as a group, rather than individually. Moreover, a commitment to bargain on a multiemployer basis will not be made to depend on the presence of a formal associational structure among the bar- gaining participants or on the formal delegation of authori- ty from the individual employer to the multi-employer group. RaVonier Incorporated, Grays Harbor Division, 52 NLRB 1269 (1943); Korner Kafe Inc., 156 NLRB 1157 (1966): Field and Sons, Inc., 189 NLRB 406 (1971). There is no evidence that any of the employers in the Association have bargained separately with the Union. I find, there- fore, that Respondent at all times material herein was a member of the Association and authorized the Association to bargain for it on a multiemployer basis. Respondent also contends that its withdrawal from the Association was effective based upon that past practice of the Association, timeliness, consent of the Union and the Association, estoppel, and unusual circumstances involved with Respondent's store in Virginia, Minnesota. The evi- dence is that Respondent's notification to Mundt of his withdrawal from the Association was not sent until after Mundt, on behalf of Respondent and other members of the Association, had agreed upon a contract with the Union. The withdrawal request was not timely. There is no evi- dence with respect to past practice of the Association con- cerning withdrawals by its members. Nor is there any evi- dence that either the Union or Mundt consented to Respondent's withdrawal from the Association insofar as Respondent being bound by the contract. Therefore, estop- pel has no application here. Furthermore, there are no un- usual circumstances involved with Respondent's store in Virginia, Minnesota, that justify Respondent's refusal to sign a contract after agreeing, as a member of the Associa- tion, to the provisions thereof and to be bound thereby. It is well established Board law that an employer who enters a multiemployer bargaining group is not free to examine the product of such negotiations to decide whether to ac- cept those terms but must abide by the terms of that agree- ment negotiated on a group basis. Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388 (1958). Only in certain specified situations, not present here, is an individual employer who has joined such a group allowed to avoid this bargaining obligation: (1) The employer has manifested in a timely and unequivo- cal fashion his intent to withdraw from the group, Inter- state Construction Company', 229 NLRB 271 (1977); (2) the Union has consented to or acquiesced in the employer's untimely withdrawal, Joseph C. Collins & Co., Inc., 184 NLRB 940 (1970); or (3) unusual circumstances exist, U.S. Lingerie Corporation, 170 NLRB 750 (1968). The timeliness 475 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of an employer's attempted withdrawal is based on two criteria; whether such withdrawal predates the date agreed upon in the prior contract for the initiation of negotiations, Retail Associates, supra, at 395, and whether the withdrawal predates the actual commencement of negotiations, Stan- dard Plumbing and Heating Compny, Inc., and Sam F. Messina d/b/a Standard Plumbing Company, 185 NLRB 444, 448 (1970). Respondent's third contention is "the equitable consid- erations in forcing a small, independent grocer to accept a contract negotiated for employers with as many as 150 em- ployees in the collective-bargaining unit, weigh in favor of permitting Falkowski Grocery to negotiate on an individ- ual basis with the Clerks Union." This contention is wholly without merit. Respondent has had a 20-year history of negotiating with the Union through a multiemployer bar- gaining group which he considered more advantageous than negotiating on an individual basis. Apart from the untimeliness of his attempt to withdraw from the Associa- tion, Respondent had an opportunity to, and did in fact, participate as a member of the policy committee in advis- ing, proposing and counterproposing throughout the pe- riod of negotiations. He was well aware of what was going on and even insisted on a bigger differential between the large operators and the small operators after agreement was reached, which he succeeded in obtaining. Respondent's fourth contention is "testimony and evi- dence relating to Falkowski Grocery and its relationship to the Area Grocers Association and to the Area Retail Gro- cers Association and any comments or communications with these associations by and through Mr. Falkowski's attorney, Daniel Mundt, is privileged under the doctrine of attorney-client privilege and must be striken from the rec- ord." That contention is likewise wholly without merit. Mundt is an attorney in practice and Falkowski was, along with all the other employers who were members of the mul- tiemployer group, in a sense, a client of Mundt. Mundt testified, in substance, that Falkowski along with all the employers in the multiemployer association agreed to be represented by Mundt. He testified that at the inception of the negotiations he supplied, as certainly he was required to do, a list of all the members of the multiemployer group who agreed to be represented by him. As a party to the negotiations, the Union was entitled to know with whom it was negotiating and who would be expected to individually sign the contract agreed to by the Union and the Associa- tion in accordance with past practice. Mundt testified with respect to Falkowski's degree of participation as a member of the policy committee during the negotiations. He also testified with respect to the composition of the policy com- mittee and the functions and relationship between the poli- cy committee and himself concerning his authority to act on behalf of the Association in negotiating a contract with the Union. All those matters were material and relevant to a determination of whether he agreed to, and subsequently became bound by, the agreement reached by the represen- tative of that group and the Union. None of these facts should have been excluded from the record on the basis of attorney-client privilege, and indeed, aside from a state- ment that the attorney-client privilege is endorsed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 503, and that "the disci- plinary rules of the American and Minnesota Bar Associa- tions prevent disclosure of confidential information given to the lawyer," the Respondent has cited no authority, and I am unaware of any, holding that the testimony of Mundt must be excluded on the basis of its confidentiality and subject to the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, if the testi- mony given by Mundt were excluded on that basis it would be most difficult to enforce the National Labor Relations Act on the facts of this case. I therefore reject that conten- tion. Moreover, Respondent, in his defense, is in effect dis- claiming an agency relationship between himself as princi- pal and Mundt as agent, arguing that the agent has no right to prove that the agency relationship in fact existed be- cause of the attorney-client relationship. It would be elabo- rating on the obvious to discuss the lack of cogency of such reasoning. That Respondent is bound by the collective-bargaining contract negotiated by the Association is well established. As previously noted, the test to be applied in determining such obligation is whether the members of the group have indicated from the outset an unequivocal intention to be bound in collective bargaining by group rather than indi- vidual action. l0 The evidence is clear that such unequivocal intention was appropriately manifested; therefore, Respon- dent must accept the results of the multiemployer negotia- tions and cannot at his pleasure renounce his commitment to be bound by the group action. The Board has repeatedly held that once commitment to group bargaining is made, the employer can extricate himself from the multiemployer relationship only by making a timely and unambiguous withdrawal from that arrangement (a withdrawal which, to be timely must, absent unusual circumstances, be made before the actual commencement of contract negotiations). Retail Associates Inc., supra. Clearly, Respondent's with- drawal attempt herein was made not just subsequent to the commencement of negotiations, but after the completion of the negotiations. It was not until it came time to sign a contract incorpo- rating the terms of the agreement reached on April 16 did Respondent announce that he did not intend to be bound by the negotiations. Accordingly, inasmuch as I have found that Respondent Falkowski through 20 years of as- sociation membership and his participation in the policy committee of the Association manifested an unequivocal intention to be bound by the Association's bargained-for contract, and inasmuch as Respondent Falkowski did not effect a timely withdrawal from this arrangement, I am forced to conclude that by refusing to honor and adhere to the terms of the contract negotiated in their behalf, Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Joseph McDaniel, an Individual Proprietorship d/b/a Custom Colors Contractors, 226 NLRB 851 (1976); Anderson Lithograph Company Inc., 124 NLRB 920 (1959), enfd. sub nom. N.L.R.B. v. Jeffries Banknote Company, 281 F.2d 893 (C.A. 9, 1960). Finally, the fact that several items were left to be negoti- ated by the parties in the future does not preclude the 0o Fairbanks Dairy. Division of Cooperdale Dairy Company Inc., 146 NLRB 893 (1964); Korner Kafe Inc., 156 NLRB 1157 (1966); Bill O'Gradiy Carpet Service, Inc.. 185 NLRB 587 (1970). 476 FALKOWSKI GROCERY achievement of the collective-bargaining agreement that should be reduced to writing and placed into application. The contracting parties often table otherwise negotiable matters by agreeing to renegotiate these at some future time or by agreeing to modify the contract upon mutual consent. Such understandings reflect the presence rather than the absence of agreement and in no way preclude enforcement of the completed contract. Central Plumbing Company, 198 NLRB 925 (1972). IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent 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 of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom and to take appropri- ate affirmative action. I shall recommend that Respondent be directed to sign the contract negotiated in its behalf upon the Union's request and to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit described below until such time as Respondent timely and unequivocally withdraws from such unit. I shall also recommend that Respondent be directed to give retroactive effect to the contract and make whole any employees covered by the contract for any financial losses sustained by them as a result of Respondent's unlawful refusal to sign the contract, with backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner set forth in F. W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).'' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW' 1. The Respondent, Falkowski Grocery, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union, Retail Clerks Local Union No. 1116, Re- tail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All full-time and regular part-time and utility employ- ees employed by the employer members of a multiemploy- er bargaining group composed of certain members of the Area Retail Grocers Association and other grocer em- ployers who authorize Daniel Mundt to bargain for this group, excluding store managers, meat department em- ployees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of " See, generally. Isis Plumhing d Hearing (Co 138 NLRB 716 (1962). collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all time material herein the Union has been the recognized representative of the employees in the above appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining with- in the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to honor and abide by the contract agreed to by the Association and the Union, entered into and made effective on April 16, 1977, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom- mended: ORDER 12 The Respondent, Falkowski Grocery, Virginia, Minne- sota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to honor and abide by the collective-bar- gaining agreement executed by the Association and the Union effective April 16, 1977, and refusing to comply with the agreement's terms. (b) Refusing to bargain on an Association basis with the Union until such time as Respondent shall timely and un- equivocally withdraw from such a bargaining arrangement. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Upon request of the Union, sign and give retroactive effect to the contract executed by the Association and the Union effective April 16, 1977, and make whole any em- ployees covered by the contract for any monetary losses they may have suffered as a consequence of Respondent's refusal to sign said contract in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision. (b) Upon request, bargain with the Union as the exclu- sive representative of all employees in the following appro- priate unit: All full-time and regular part-time and utility em- ployees employed by the employer members of a mul- ti-employer bargaining group composed of certain members of the Area Retail Grocers Association and other grocer employers who authorize Daniel Mundt to bargain for this group, excluding store managers, meat department employees, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. until such time as Respondent shall timely and unequivo- l: In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings. conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto shall he deemed waived for all purposes. 477 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cally withdraw from the above bargaining arrangement. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agent, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, per- sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Virginia, Minnesota, place of business copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 13 Cop- ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- rector for Region 18, after being duly signed by Respon- dent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees 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. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. " In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the ULnited States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order oft the National l.abor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF 'HE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all parties had an opportunity to present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, upon request of the Union, honor and give retroactive effect to the contract executed, effective April 16, 1977, and WE WILL compensate any employee covered by the contract for any monetary losses they may have suffered as a result of our refusal to sign the contract. WE WILL. upon request of the Union, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the em- ployees in the following unit: All full-time and regular part-time and utility em- ployees employed by the employer members of a multi-employer bargaining group composed of cer- tain members of the Area Retail Grocers Associa- tion and other grocer employers who authorize Daniel Mundt to bargain for this group, excluding store managers, meat department employees, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, until such time as we shall timely withdraw from the above unit. FALKOWSKI GROCERY 478