Wolf Lake Food Center, Inc.

432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Wolf Lake Food Center, Inc. and Retail Store Em- ployees Union, Local No. 20, Retail Clerks Inter- national Association, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-6306 June 26, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On April 23, 1968, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his 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 de- sist therefrom and take certain affimative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner further found that the Respon- dent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint , and recom- mended that those allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. Muskegon, Michigan , on February 5, 1968, pur- suant to due notice. The complaint, which was is- sued on December 29, 1967,' on a charge filed on October 5, alleged in substance that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8 (a)(1) and (5) of the Act by various specified acts of interference, restraint, and coer- cion in August and September, and by refusing on and after September 6 to bargain with the Union as the majority representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. Respondent by answer denied said unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Respondent, a Michigan corporation, operates a retail food store in Muskegon County, Michigan, at which its annual sales exceed $500,000. It purchases and receives annually directly from ex- trastate points, products whose value exceeds $10,000, and it also purchases annually products valued in excess of $100,000 from another concern in Michigan, of which more than $50,000 in value were purchased and received by the latter directly from extrastate points. Respondent is thus engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction and Issues 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 orders that the Respondent, Wolf Lake Food Center, Inc., Muskegon, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action as set forth in the Trail Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE A. DOWNING, Trial Examiner: This proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was heard at Respondent corporation, which is owned and managed by Michael Costello, operates a food store at Wolf Lake at which it employs some 12 to 13 employees. Organizational activities began on the evening of August 23 when some seven employees met at the home of Rosemary O'Rourke and signed authorization cards for the Union. Other cards were signed on August 24 and 31. Witnesses for the General Counsel testified to al- leged coercive statements made by Costello on Au- gust 24 and in a meeting which he called with the employees on September 6, including solicitations, promises of benefit, and unilateral negotiations. Wage increases were also given later to a number of employees. Testimony by Costello, Respondent's. only witness, raises issues whether the foregoing conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(1). Issues under Section 8(a)(5) are whether the Union was a majority representative, whether it ' All events herein occured in 1967, unless otherwise specified 172 NLRB No. 75 WOLF LAKE FOOD CENTER, INC. 433 made an actual request to bargain , and whether Respondent entertained a good-faith doubt of majority. The General Counsel asserts further that the evidence will warrant the issuance of a bargain- ing order even if it be found that no actual request to bargain was made. B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion The conduct complained of herein began im- mediately after the organizational meeting at Rose- mary O'Rourke's home on August 23, of which Costello was informed. A number of the employees, including Clayton A. (Bud) Clark, his sister, Dorothy Clark, and Roy Seelye, informed Costello in the next day or so that they had signed cards for the Union. To Dorothy Clark, Costello commented that the employees must really hate him. To Seelye, Costello commented that there would be no more "joking around," and that, "[T]his means just work." To Clayton Clark he commented that there would be no more "goofing around," that the em- ployees would "just have to stick to the job," and that they would have to have clean haircuts and wear white shirts and a tie, which was the first time in 2 years (Clark testified) that Costello had made a point of requiring compliance with an old rule. Costello admitted that the above three employees informed him they had signed union cards, as well as Brad Trcka and Terry Pastoor, and he made no denial of the statements attributed to him. He testified, however, that his rule about attire and haircuts had been in effect since the store opened and that he had enforced it, albeit in joking manner, by asking whether the employee forgot the bleach. Clayton Clark testified, however, that Costello had not previously "stood by" the rules and was not strict about compliance. On August 25 Philip Rehkopf, president of Local 20, called on Costello, informed him there was an organizing campaign underway, and requested him not to make any changes and to keep things as they were. Rehkopf also informed Costello he had heard of certain promises of raises which Costello had made and of threatening statements about closing the store and that those were things the Union wanted to avoid. Much of the remaining conduct occurred at an employee meeting on September 6, which Costello called immediately after returning from an un- precedented luncheon engagement with Rosemary O'Rourke, whom Costello considered to be a leader in the union drive. Though there was some conflict concerning the originator of the luncheon idea 2 and of certain proposals which they considered, there was no dispute under their testimony that they discussed alternatives to the Union. O'Rourke testified that Costello asked what gripes the employees had and why they did not come to him first rather than calling in the Union and stated he felt they could do without the Union. O'Rourke could not recall whether it was she who brought up the matter of having a contract with the employees. On cross-examination O'Rourke denied that her action in discussing with Costello alterna- tives to union representation was inconsistent with her action in signing a card for the Union, explain- ing that it was the employees who were not exactly consistent in that though they definitely wanted the Union at the time of the meeting at her home, things began to happen between individual em- ployees and Costello as a result of which "they seemed to get away from the Union." O'Rourke testified further that Costello directed her to call the employees together for a meeting after store hours and that during the return ride to the store she suggested that if the employees did not want the Union, they could take the $6 a month which it would normally cost them for union dues and put it in the bank to be used either by the col- lege students to cover college expenses or to be withdrawn at Christmas time. Costello testified that it was O'Rourke who sought the luncheon meeting and that during the luncheon she referred to her employment at another store under a union contract and suggested that if somehow they could put such a contract into their own thinking, they would not need the Union. Costello admitted that he directed O'Rourke to call the employees together for a meeting. Upon returning to the store, Costello found Rehkopf awaiting him, and there occurred a con- versation which is set forth in section C, 3, infra. Costello did not inform Rehkopf that he had set up a meeting with the employees. There is scant dispute concerning the material events at the latter meeting. In brief synopsis the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses was to the following effect: Though Costello stated he could not promise the employees anything, he proceeded to discuss their grievances with them at length and suggested further that the employees prepare a written list of individual grievances which he would discuss with them individually after the lists were turned in. Costello discussed further both the good points and the bad points of a union and compared the condi- tions at the store with those at Eberhard's where the employees made more money (under a union contract) but had to work harder. Costello stated he could not afford a union but, referring to union contracts under which he and O'Rourke formerly worked, stated that he would draw up a contract similar to those, which would cover wages and other such benefits as sick pay, overtime pay, etc., and which would give him "a second chance" to prove himself. Finally Costello said that instead of the employees paying union dues of $6 a month, he ' Though it was the first and last such luncheon between them , O'Rourke testified she could not recall whether it was at Costello's invitation or how it came about Costello testified that O'Rourke suggested it, saying that she understood " both sides of the picture." 354-129 O-LT - 73 - pt. 1 - 29 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD could take the money, put it in a bank until Christ- mas or some other holiday, and then pay it over to the employees. Costello's testimony went mainly to the point that he emphasized to the employees that he could make no promises or threats and to his recital of both the good and the bad points of unionism as reflected by comparisons of conditions at Eberhard's. He admitted suggesting that the em- ployees make lists of their grievances and did not deny the opposing testimony concerning his proposal to draw up a contract to cover the wages, hours, and other benefits which the employees would receive. Costello also admitted making the suggestion concerning union dues as set forth above but claimed he credited the suggestion to O'Rourke. Both O'Rourke and Clayton Clark de- nied the latter claim. Sometime following the meeting Costello posted a notice to employees which , after referring to the Union's organizational efforts, contained in part the following statements: We are conducting our personnel program the same as usual-including those wage increases set by our schedule. Consideration of any new benefits or conditions must wait until after the union drive; however, we can (and will) talk about where we now stand and why we think we are all better off working together without a union. As we see it, this new team deserves a chance to prove itself to employees as well as to customers and creditors .... There was also testimony by the Clarks and Roy Seelye that they later turned in to Costello their written grievances which listed the wages they desired as well as other benefits. All of them later received raises though not the amounts they specified. Clayton Clark, who had gotten a raise from $1.50 to $1.75 shortly before he signed a union card, was raised again in October from $1.75 to $2. Dorothy Clark was raised 25 cents an hour a few days after she handed in her grievances. Roy Seelye was raised 25 cents an hour a month or so after the meeting. Costello informed Seelye that it was because Larry O'Brien had left and that if any- one mentioned the raise or the Union, he should simply reply that he deserved the raise. O'Rourke also got a raise in September after the meeting. Costello informed her it was an ap- propriate time for a raise because he had been open some 18 months and most stores would give a raise after 6 months. O'Rourke testified that she had in fact gotten a raise in February , after working for a year, and another one in June. O'Rourke also testified to two further conversa- tions with Costello. In the first one, some 2 weeks after the meeting , Costello made a comment about not being able to afford the Union but added that he guessed he would have to afford it. About a month after the meeting Costello asked, "How could you and Bud [Clark] do this to me?" When O'Rourke asked what he meant, Costello con- tinued, "How could you and Bud call the Union in on me? ... It's going to cost me a thousand dollars to keep the union out." Costello admitted giving the foregoing raises and admitted that the last ones before that were as recent as the first of August and, before that, in May, when he began giving raises. Costello sought to justify the increases on the ground that his gross sales were increasing though he admitted that profit-wise the business was still losing money. El- sewhere, however , in attempting to explain his failure to withhold the granting of benefits (as he stated he would do in the posted notice-supra.) Costello testified that he gave the raises because some of the employees were leaving and he did not want to lose any more. Concluding Findings I conclude and find that by the statements made to Clayton Clark and Roy Seelye on or about Au- gust 24, Costello threatened that if the Union were to come in he would impose more rigorous working conditions and would renew the strict enforcement of rules, deviations from which had previously been overlooked. I do not find, however, that Costello's further reference to those matters in the meeting of September 6 was coercive for it was plain that Costello was then comparing working conditions at Eberhard's under a union contract with those at Wolf Lake. I conclude and find further that Costello engaged in coercive conduct by questioning O'Rourke about the reasons why the employees sought union representation and concerning what benefits he might offer to persuade them to forego union representation and to deal directly with him. Costello's conduct at the meeting with the em- ployees is to be viewed, of course, in the light of his earlier conduct as found above . Costello sought then to implement his discussions with O 'Rourke of alternatives to union representation , one of which was a contract similar to certain union contracts with which he and O'Rourke were familiar. After a full discussion of employee grievances and de- mands, Costello proposed that he would draw up a contract similar to the union contracts which would cover wages and other benefits which the em- ployees desired . By thus foregoing union represen- tation the employees would avoid the payment of union dues which Costello proposed to bank for them as savings to be paid out on specified occa- sions. While Costello made no formal offer of a con- tract, he later sought by his posted notice to throw upon the Union the onus for his failure to put into effect the new benefits and conditions and pleaded that the "new team" (of Costello and the em- ployees, of course) be given a chance to prove itself by working together without a union. Such conduct has long been held to be violative WOLF LAKE FOOD CENTER, INC. 435 of Section 8(a)(1). As the Supreme Court held in Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 678,686,687: The words and purpose of Sections 7 and 8(1) of the Act enjoin an employer from interfering with, or coercing, its employees in their rights to self-organization , to form , join , or assist labor organizations, and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. There could be no more obvious way of inter- fering with these rights of employees than by grants of wage increases upon the understand- ing that they would leave the union in return . The action of employees with respect to the choice of their bargaining agents may be in- duced by favors bestowed by the employer as well as by his threats of domination.... Furthermore the conduct was in no way justified or excused by Costello's attempt to identify O'Rourke as the originator of the plan to bypass the Union. As the Court held in the Medo case: Petitioner was not relieved from its obligations because the employees asked that they be disregarded. The statute was enacted in the public in the interest for the protection of the employees' right to collective bargaining and it may not be ignored by the employer, even though the employees consent ... or the em- ployees suggest the conduct found to be an un- fair labor practice .... I conclude and find further that the wage in- creases as later given were a part and a continua- tion of Costello's unilateral dealings with the em- ployees, were a partial implementation of his promises at the meeting , and were given in order to dissuade the employees from my further adherence to the Union. Kawneer Company, 164 NLRB 983; Noma Lites Corp., 170 NLRB. Costello's explana- tions were patently specious. The last increases had been given in August and nothing occurred in the short interval thereafter except that the employees organized . Costello was admittedly operating at a loss and he made no showing of such a rapid improvement in business as would warrant giving further raises in less than 2 months after the last ones. C. The Refusal To Bargain 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleged, Respondent admitted, and I find that all grocery and meat department em- ployees of Respondent employed at its Wolf Lake Store , including clerks, cashiers, stockboys, and butchers , but excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- pose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 2. The Union's majority A stipulation reached at the hearing established the identities of 13 employees in the aforesaid unit on August 23 and 12 on September 6. On the per- sonal authentication of the signatories themselves the General Counsel offered authorization cards which were signed by seven of said employees on August 23, one on August 25, and two on August 31. Each card contained only a simple, unam- biguous authorization of the Union to represent the signatory "for the purpose of collective bargaining, respecting rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, or other conditions of employment, in ac- cordance with applicable law." Cross-examination by Respondent of the signatories developed nothing of substance which detracted from the validity of any one of the authorizations. I therefore conclude and find that on August 23 and on September 6 and thereafter, the Union was the Representative of a majority of Respondent's employees in the unit described above, and as such was the exclusive representative of all the em- ployees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 3. The request to bargain The General Counsel concedes that Rehkopf did not make a request to bargain on August 25 when he put Costello on notice that an organizing cam- paign was under way. Whether a request was made in specific terms on September 6 is a point on which the testimony of Rehkopf and Costello is in conflict. Pertinent for consideration of that issue is the immediate background supplied by the luncheon meeting between Costello and O'Rourke as well as Costello's conduct in the meeting with the employees which followed on its heels. Rehkopf testifed that he waited on the parking lot until Costello returned and that he went into the store and told Costello he would like to talk with him for a few minutes . Costello replied that he had hired a lawyer who had instructed him not to talk with Rehkopf or anyone from the Union. Costello started to walk away, but Rehkopf called out stat- ing that he wanted to ask for recognition and asked whether Costello's lawyer was authorized to act for him. Costello responded that he had nothing further to say. On cross-examination Rehkopf ad- mitted that he at no time informed Costello that the Union represented a majority of the employees and that the Union never made a formal written request for recognition and never petitioned for an elec- tion. Costello testified that when Rehkopf stated he wanted to talk with him he replied that he had hired a lawyer and that he handed Rehkopf the lawyer's card and walked away. He denied that Rehkopf made any statement requesting recogni- tion. - Though I conclude and find that Rehkopf made a bare request for recognition as he testified, he did not specify what employees or groups of employees 436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he was seeking to represent nor did he follow through by pursuing the matter with the lawyer to whom Costello referred him. Though the request might have been adequate under all the circum- stances herein if Rehkopf had identified the group whom he was claiming to represent , it was plainly deficient under the facts disclosed in the record as follows: Respondent's answer as originally filed denied that the Wolf Lake store was its only place of busi- ness and denied that a unit of the employees at that store was an appropriate one. When attention was called at the opening of the hearing to the decision in Haag Drug Company , Inc., 169 NLRB 884, Respondent amended its answer to admit that a unit confined to the single store at Wolf Lake was an appropriate one. The possibility of a further unit question was sug- gested by the inclusion of the meatcutters in the unit with grocery department employees, since there are numerous cases in which separate units have been found appropriate of such employees. Furthermore the evidence showed that the initial organizational meeting at O'Rourke 's home (of which Costello had knowledge ) was attended only by grocery department employees. I therefore conclude and find that Rehkopf's bare statement that he wanted to request recognition was insufficient as a request to bargain in that it failed to specify any unit in which representative status was being asserted . I conclude and find further that there being no proper request, no refusal to bargain may be found under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as charged. 4. The issue concerning a bargaining order The General Counsel contends alternatively that even if a proper demand for recognition has not been shown , Respondent's conduct nevertheless was such that a Section 8(a)(I) bargaining order should be granted as a remedy . Citing numerous Board and court decisions to support his position, the General Counsel relies primarily on Western Aluminum of Oregon , Inc., 144 NLRB 1191, 1192, where the pertinent portion of the Board 's holding is expressed in the following language: Where , as here, the Union has clearly established its majority status prior to the Respondent 's unfair labor practices and the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices aimed at destroying the Union's majority and disclosing a disposition to evade their obligation to bargain , we would require the Respondents to bargain upon request whether or not the Union has lost its majority by a turnover . Indeed , under these circum- stances, it must be presumed that, but for the Respondent's unfair labor practices, the Union would have retained its majority . Not to order the Respondents to bargain with the Union upon request would in effect enable the Respondents to profit by their unfair labor practices. The Board made further explication of its ra- tionale in Northwest Engineering Company, 158 NLRB 624, 629-630 , enfd . sub nom . United Steel- workers v . N.L.R.B., 376 F.2d 770, 772-773. The Board and the courts have applied the foregoing principles in a number of recent cases, in- cluding by way of example, Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association, 163 NLRB 777; Jacksboro Bill- fold Company , 162 NLRB 1032; Better Val-U Stores of Mansfield, Inc., 161 NLRB 762; and J. C. Penney Company , 160 NLRB 279, enfd . 384 F.2d 479 (C.A. 10). In the latter case the court , ordering en- forcement , rejected the Company's reliance on N.L.R.B . v. Flomatic Corporation , 347 F.2d 74 (C.A. 2), on which Respondent places its main reliance here . Similarly in N.L.R.B . v. Delight Bakery, Inc., 353 F.2d 344 , 347, the Court of Ap- peals for the Sixth Circuit distinguished and refused to follow Flomatic and held it was well within the Board 's discretion to seek a remedy which would effectively restore the status quo ante . See also United Steelworkers v. N.L.R .B., supra , where the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia also declined to follow Flomatic. The present case plainly calls for application of the foregoing principles . Costello was fully aware that an organizing campaign was under way and that at least six employees ( only one short of a nu- merical majority ) were open adherents of the Union . Rehkopf's second appearance was thus something that Costello was obviously expecting and something which he prepared for by employing counsel . Costello sought further to take time by the forelock by exploring with O 'Rourke methods by which the employees could be induced to foreswear the Union and to bargain directly with him, thus enabling him to forestall and to bypass the Union. Furthermore despite Rehkopf's request to make no changes in wages or working conditions , Costello proceeded to carry through his scheme of unilateral dealings in the face of Rehkopf's appearance on the immediate scene and the request for recognition. On this record I conclude and find that Costello's unlawful conduct both before and after Rehkopf's request for recognition as found in section B, supra, was aimed at destroying the Union 's majority and disclosed that his disposition was to evade and forestall his obligation to bargain with the Union. Since the fact of the Union 's majority was established , whatever defections may have oc- curred were plainly induced by Respondent's unfair labor practices , which were aimed at destroying that majority . Western Aluminum, supra; Medo Photo Supply Co. v. N .L.R.B., 321 U .S. 678, 687. Under those circumstances only an order requir- ing Respondent to bargain with the Union can restore as nearly as possible the situation which would have existed but for Respondent 's unfair labor practices as herein found . I shall therefore recommend an appropriate bargaining order. WOLF LAKE FOOD CENTER, INC. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act as found in section B, supra, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. 2. All grocery and meat department employees of Respondent employed at its Wolf Lake store, in- cluding clerks, cashiers, stockboys, and butchers, but excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 3. At all times on and after August 23, 1967, the Union has been the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. 4. By engaging in the unfair labor practices found in section B, supra , in order to undermine and destroy the Union's majority and to avoid a bargaining relationship with the Union, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action outlined below which I find to be necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act. For the reasons which are stated in section C(4), supra, I shall recommend an ap- propriate bargaining order. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the follow- ing: RECOMMENDED ORDER Wolf Lake Food Center, Inc., its officers, agents, representatives , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening to impose more rigorous work- ing conditions and to renew the strict enforcement of working rules if the Union should come in. (b) Interrogating employees concerning the reasons why other employees sought union representation and concerning what benefits Respondent might offer its employees in order to 437 dissuade them from continued adherence to the Union. (c) Engaging in direct and unilateral dealings with the employees in order to dissuade them from continued adherence to the Union. (d) Promising, either explicitly or implicitly, the remedying of grievances or improvements in wages, hours, or working conditions in order to persuade employees to forego union representation. (e) Granting wage increases to employees in order to dissuade them from continued adherence to the Union. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer- cise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Upon request, bargain with Retail Store Em- ployees Union, Local No . 20, Retail Clerks Interna- tional Association , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the unit herein found appropriate and embody any understanding reached in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its store and offices at Muskegon, Michigan , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ,"' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent 's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' ' 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 " ' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 7 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT threaten to impose more rigorous working conditions or to renew the 438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD strict enforcement of working rules if the Union should come in. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees con- cerning the reasons why other employees sought union representation or concerning what benefits we might offer employees to dis- suade them from continued adherence to the Union. WE WILL NOT engage in direct and unilateral dealings with our employees in order to dis- suade them from continued adherence to the Union. WE WILL NOT promise, either explicitly or implicitly , the remedying of employee grievances or improvements in wages, hours, and working conditions in order to persuade our employees to forego union representation. WE WILL NOT grant wage increases to our employees in order to dissuade them from con- tinued adherence to the Union. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL bargain collectively , upon request, with Retail Store Employees Union, Local No. 20, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is: All grocery and meat department em- ployees employed at our Wolf Lake Store including clerks, cashiers, stockboys and butchers, but excluding all supervisors as defined in the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of Retail Store Employees Union , Local No . 20, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, 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. WOLF LAKE FOOD CENTER, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive 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 , 500 Book Building , 1249 Washington Bou- levard, Detroit, Michigan 48226 , Telephone 226-3244.