Sunshine Food Markets, Inc.

252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sunshine Food Markets, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 521. Case 17-CA-3585 May 29, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On March 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practice conduct alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. 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, conclusion,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respondent, Sunshine Food Markets, Inc., South Sioux City, Nebraska, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT E. MULLIN, Trial Examiner : This case was heard in South Sioux City, Nebraska, on October 1, 1968, pursuant to charges duly filed and served' and a complaint 'In the absence of exceptions we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent 's unilateral change of the hours of two employees violated Sec. 8(a)(3) that, initially, was issued on July 31, 1968. The complaint, as amended on September 4, 1968, presents questions as to whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. In its answer and amended answer, duly filed, the Respondent conceded certain facts with respect to its business operations, but it denied all allegations that it had committed any unfair labor practices. All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, to argue orally at the close of the hearing and to file briefs. Oral argument was waived. On November 7, 1968, briefs were submitted by the General Counsel and the Respondent.' Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs of counsel, and from his observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT' 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a South Dakota corporation, with its central offices located in Sioux Falls, in that State, operates a chain of retail grocery stores in the States of South Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska. In the course and conduct of its operations, the Respondent has an annual gross volume of business in excess of $500,000. It likewise has annual purchases in excess of $50,000 which cross state lines directly in transit to the Respondent. Upon the foregoing facts the Respondent concedes, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Sunshine Foods Markets, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 'II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent concedes, and the Trial Examiner finds, that Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO (herein called Union or Amalgamated), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and sequence of Events The Respondent's chain of retail markets is divided into two divisions, one known as the Sioux Falls Division and the other as the Sioux City Division. The latter has six stores, one of which is located in Yankton, South Dakota, and the other five of which are located in the metropolitan area of Sioux City, Iowa. Store 8, in South Sioux City, Nebraska, is one of the latter five stores and is the only one involved in the labor dispute with which this case is 'The charge was filed on June 12, 1968. 'During the hearing, Counsel for the Respondent moved that the Trial Examiner view the premises of the supermarket that was the scene of the labor dispute here involved . This motion was granted and immediately after the close of the hearing the viewing was accomplished by the Trial Examiner, who, in so doing, was accompanied by counsel for all the parties. 'In an appendix to its brief the General Counsel moved that the transcript be corrected in three minor particulars. The Respondent having filed no opposition thereto , and the Trial Examiner having duly considered the motion, said motion is granted and the transcript corrected in accordance therewith. 176 NLRB No. 36 SUNSHINE FOOD MARKETS concerned. The total number of employees in the Respondent's entire chain is between 450 and 500. On February 6, 1968, subsequent to a hearing on the matters raised in a representation petition filed by the Union, the Regional Director issued a decision wherein he directed an election in a unit, which he found appropriate, of all meat department employees at Store 8, excluding office clericals, the cleanup man, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. Sunshine Food Markets, Inc., Case 17-RC-5606.' At the time of the election, held on March 1,' there were seven employees in the aforesaid unit. Of this number, four cast ballots for the Union and three voted against it. There were no challenged ballots. On March 11, no objections having been filed to the tally of ballots or to the conduct of the election, the Regional Director certified the Union as the representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. Thereafter, on April 3 and 18, the parties met for collective bargaining negotiations. Whether the Respondent arranged for a third meeting which was subsequently cancelled at the Union's request is an issue in this case. In any event, no further meetings were held. On June 13, a strike began at the meat department of Store 8. Two witnesses at the hearing, John Graybill and Helen Plantz, testified that they were still on strike. Whether others in the unit ever joined them in the strike does not appear in the record. The General Counsel contends that during the period prior to the election and immediately thereafter the Respondent engaged in various acts of interference, restraint and coercion; that after the Union attained its majority status, the Respondent engaged in unlawful unilateral actions ; that the Respondent refused to bargain in good faith; and that the strike which began on June 13, arose out of the Respondent's unlawful course of conduct and was an unfair labor practice strike. All of the foregoing allegations are denied in their entirety by the Respondent. B. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(ayl ); Findings and Conclusions With Respect Thereto In support of these allegations the General Counsel relied on testimony as to several incidents, one of which occurred prior to the election and the rest subsequent thereto. February 23 Mrs. Helen Plantz testified that on about February 23, she and her husband, Alvin Plantz, had a discussion with Robert E. Anderson, meat department supervisor for the Respondent's Sioux City Division. According to Mrs. Plantz, Anderson asked her if he and Paul Zajecka, the head of the meat department, could come to her home that weekend and visit with her and her husband. Mrs. Plantz testified that she told Anderson that would be impossible because of other commitments , but that her husband would be in the store on Friday, February 23, to do the family shopping and that Anderson could talk with the two of them at that time. 'The Respondent conceded that it did not request a review of this Decision and Direction of Election. 'All dates mentioned hereinafter refer to the year 1968, unless otherwise noted. 253 Both Mrs. Plantz and her husband testified as to this meeting with Anderson and Zajecka. According to these witnesses, at the outset of the meeting, Anderson stated that there would not be a union in the Sunshine stores. Mrs. Plantz testified that thereafter Anderson reviewed the company benefits and, after describing the Sunshine personnel as being a "big, happy family," he told her and her husband that the Sunshine employees "stand to lose too much to have a union." Mrs. Plantz' testimony was corroborated in substantial measure by that of her husband. Further, according to Alvin Plantz, it was Anderson who requested an opportunity to meet and discuss the forthcoming election with him and his wife. Anderson testified that the meeting came about at the request of Mrs. Plantz and that it arose, in part, out of her difficulties in getting along with her coworkers. He conceded that during the meeting he discussed the advantages of company employment, and various benefits and dividends which that employment had to offer. He denied that he told Mrs. Plantz that she would lose anything if the Union won the election. On cross-examination , however, after Anderson testified that whereas he had not singled out Mrs. Plantz as the only one who would lose under those circumstances, he went on to say that what he had implied to Mrs,. Plantz, he was "implying to every employee that was there."6 Anderson's testimony as to the circumstances under which he happened to have a meeting with both Mrs. Plantz and her husband was lacking in credence. Zajecka who was present at the meeting and who appeared as a witness at the hearing was asked no questions about what occurred on this occasion. On the other hand, both Mrs. Plantz and her husband were credible in their testimony that it was Anderson who initiated the conference. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that their testimony in this regard was substantially accurate. On the basis of their testimony, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that Anderson called Mr. and Mrs. Plantz to the store office to confer with them about the impending election and that during the course of the ensuing discussion of company benefits he told them that the employees "stand to lose too much to have a union ." Anderson, of course, was free to discuss the election issue with the employees insofar as his comments did not constitute interference, restraint or coercion within the meaning of the Act. His freedom of speech, however, did not extend to the last quoted phrase which, when coupled with his review of company benefits, plainly implied that the advent of a union might result in the loss of such benefits. Anderson's comment in this connection , and under these circumstances, constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(1) by the Respondent. March I As appears above, the election was held on March 1. Mrs. Plantz testified that within an hour after the results of the voting became known, Store Manager Seth A. Scott came to where she and two other employees, Alara Loecker and Cheryl Rush , were standing . According to Mrs. Plantz, Scott told her that Jerold Schaeffer, another employee of the meat department, had gone to the main office' and had asked for a transfer. Mrs. Plantz testified that Scott told them that this proved that Schaeffer had `The quotation is from Anderson's testimony 'The main office for the division was located in Sioux City, Iowa, only a short distance away 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD voted against the Union and that if any of the other employees asked for a transfer the company officials would construe that as an indication that they also had voted "no" in the election . Mrs. Plantz testified that at the time she told Scott that she had no desire to transfer to another store because she had been at Store 8 for over 3 years. Scott denied that he had made any such comments on election day as those which Mrs . Plantz attributed to him. On the other hand, he testified that he had heard late that afternoon that Schaeffer had sought to be transferred and that Cheryl Rush likewise had asked for a transfer on the ground that there was too much dissension in the meat market. Earlier herein, Mrs. Plantz was found to be a credible witness. In this instance , her version impressed the Trial Examiner as a frank and honest recollection of what occurred on the day in question . Moreover, although subjected to a searching cross-examination as to other phases of her testimony, no questions were asked of her on cross-examination as to this incident. Scott's categorical denial of the comment attributed to him by this employee did not carry the same degree of persuasiveness . For this reason, the Trial Examiner concludes that the testimony of Mrs . Plantz was a substantially accurate account of what occurred. The statement by Scott, as related in the testimony of Mrs. Plantz, was, in effect, a suggestion by the store manager that the employees disclose their vote in the election which had just been concluded . This, of course, constituted interference with, and restraint of, employee rights guaranteed by the Act, and, as such , was violative of Section 8(a)(l). The Trial Examiner so finds. March 12 On the evening of March 12, the Respondent held a meeting at the American Legion Hall in Sioux City. All permanent employees in the Sioux City division were invited and approximately 150 were in attendance.' The Respondent's president, George Sercl, spoke to the employees about the significance of the fact that the Union had won the election in a unit consisting of the meat department at Store 8 and he discussed the existing benefits which the Company already offered all its employees . According to Employee John Graybill, Sercl read the provisions of certain collective-bargaining contracts then in effect in the Sioux City area and compared the advantages which Sunshine employees had as to a profit sharing plan, insurance and other benefits. Graybill testified that Sercl declared that whereas the Union had won the election and he was required to bargain with it, he would not agree to anything more than was provided by the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements from which he had quoted . According to Graybill, Sercl concluded by reading from two letters, purportedly written by employees in the meat department, in which the writers expressed misgivings about having voted for the Union . Sercl's comment , after reading the letters, was that these employees had "made their beds and now they had to sleep in them ." At the hearing, Sercl's testimony in large measure, corroborated that of Graybill as to what had been said at the meeting. He did not deny having made the specific comment quoted above, but he did deny that he had forecast that in the future those who had voted for the Union would find working conditions unpleasant. The General Counsel contends, and the . Respondent denies, that Sercl's speech was coercive, most particularly the phrase that appears above. Secri 's comments expressed disagreement with the choice which a majority of the meat department employees had made and he endeavored to establish in the minds of those present that the Respondent had provided more for its personnel than they could secure under various union contracts in effect at other stores. Some in the audience may have felt that the phrase in question contained overtones of a threat to those who had voted for union representation. In fact, however, the comment was largely ambiguous . Viewed in the light of the protection accorded free speech by Section 8(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that Sercl's remarks did not violate Section 8(a)(1). March 14 Employee Helen Plantz testified that on March 14, Division Manager Bernie S . Narlin, Sr., spoke to the employees of the meat department in the store office. According to Mrs . Plantz, the Company was represented by Neil Jensen, the personnel manager, as well as Narlin. Paul Zajecka, the head meat cutter was likewise present, along with employees Cheryl Rush, Alara Loecker, and Jerold Schaeffer. Mrs. Plantz testified that Narlin told those in attendance that he considered anyone who went to a union meeting, or signed union cards, as a disloyal employee; that those who "really did not like our work,. . . should go somewhere else... there would be other people waiting for the work."' To emphasize that replacements were available, Narlin concluded by telling them that a woman applicant had come to the store recently and applied for a job in the meat department. Narlin died prior to the hearing . The death of one who would have been a witness on its behalf unquestionably placed the Respondent at a grave disadvantage. On the other hand, Personnel Manager Jensen , who was present when Narlin met with the employees and who, so far as appears from the record , was available at the time of the hearing , was not called to testify as to this meeting. Furthermore, the Respondent called Head Meat Cutter Zajecka to testify as to other matters, but asked him no questions as to this incident. Mrs. Plantz was a credible witness and , in view of the fact that the Respondent did not seek to contradict her testimony through the witnesses who were available , it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that Division Manager Narlin made the remarks which she attributed to him . '" Narlin's comments about what he considered disloyalty on the part of those who supported the Union and the implication that those who were dissatisfied with present working conditions should seek other employment rather than resort to the Union for representation , constituted unlawful interference, restraint and coercion and a violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 'President Sercl estimated that about 95 percent of the employees were present. 'The quotation is from Plantz' testimony. "Even if the Respondent had had no other witnesses on whom to rely, Plantz' testimony as to a conversation with the decedent would have been admissible. Wigmore, Evidence, Vol V, Sec. 1456, Vol VI, Sec. 1766, 1769-72 (3d ed.), Linde Air Products Company 86 NLRB 1333, 1336; Quarles Mfg. Co., 83 NLRB 697, 699, remanded to the Board on other grounds 196 F.2d 82 (C.A. 5), Reynolds Wire Company, 26 NLRB 662, 666, enfd . 121 F 2d 627 (C A 7); see also Central Rent-a-Car Y. Franklin SUNSHINE FOOD MARKETS 255 The Alleged Solicitation to Withdraw from the Union After Sercl concluded his speech to the employees on the evening of March 12, John Graybill, an employee in the meat department at Store 8 , asked Personnel Manager Jensen whether he could discuss with Sercl the questions which the latter had raised in his speech. Jensen assured him that this would be possible, but suggested that such a meeting be deferred until later. The following day, Division Manager Narlin and Meat Manager Anderson were at Store 8. Graybill testified, credibly and without contradiction, that Narlin told him and several other employees present that the Company "would like to have everyone be like one big, happy family and have things go along the way they were before the election." According to Graybill, Narlin further told them that if any of the employees had any problems that could not be resolved by Zajecka, the meat manager, that President Sercl himself would always be ready to talk with them about their problems. Graybill testified that at this point he apprised Anderson of the fact that at the meeting the night 'before he had sought an opportunity to speak with Sercl. A few minutes later, Anderson told Graybill that he had just concluded a telephone conversation with Sercl and that the latter told him that he could see Graybill that afternoon at the company headquarters in Sioux Falls. Graybill testified that both Anderson and Narlin urged that he leave immediately for such a conference." Graybill did so and arrived at Sercl's office in Sioux Falls late on the afternoon of March 13.1= Graybill's testimony as to the ensuing conversation with the company president was substantially as follows: Graybill opened the discussion by telling Sercl that he felt the latter misunderstood what the employees really wanted. Then, when Sercl suggested that it was Graybill who had started the union drive, the employee denied that he was. Sercl thereupon enumerated the other employees in the meat department and Graybill finally told him that Dick Smolnick was the meat department employee who had initially contacted the Union. Graybill, however, acknowledged that thereafter he actively sought to enroll the members of the department as union supporters. Sercl thereupon told Graybill that since the election he had received letters from three of the meat department employees wherein they indicated a change of mind so that at that point it appeared that Graybill was the only union supporter left." Sercl then asked "Since there is only one left... could you be persuaded to change your mind?" Graybill answered in the negative and the conference ended when Sercl promised that he would send the employee a letter covering the substance of their duscussion. The testimony of Sercl as to what was said at this meeting did not differ in any substantial respects from that of Graybill. The Respondent's president testified that after Graybill endeavored to establish that he was not the one initially responsible for bringing the Union into the meat department, the employee manifested some dissatisfaction with current developments as far as the Mut. Ins. Co., 289 N.W. 261, 291 Mich . 578; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Saxe, 134 F.2d 31 (C.A. D.C.) cert. denied 63 S.Ct. 1033. The foregoing findings are based on the credible testimony of Graybill. The Respondent called Anderson as a witness, but at no time asked him any questions as to this incident . Graybill's testimony in this connection, therefore, stands uncontradicted. "Sioux Falls and Sioux City are approximately 90 miles apart. "The Union had received four votes in the unit of seven employees Union was concerned . Sercl never denied any of the testimony which Graybill gave as to this encounter. In a very material respect, Sercl's testimony corroborated that of the employee . Thus, Graybill testified that after Sercl told him that correspondence from three of the employees indicated that he [Graybill] was the only union man left, Sercl then asked him "Since there is only one left. . . could you be persuaded to change your mind .?" Sercl, on the other hand, testified that after he and Graybill had been discussing the Union for some while, " we both agreed that he [Graybill] was just about the only one left that was carrying the ball." (Emphasis supplied.) According to Sercl, at this point, Graybill asked "What is there in it for me if I drop out?" Sercl testified that he at first took this to mean that the employee was asking for money, but that further conversation disclosed that this was not the case, and that, in fact, Graybill was disturbed, primarily, about his relations with Zajecka and Anderson. According to Sercl, he then proposed that Graybill secure a meeting with Division Manager Narlin and discuss his problems with Narlin . Sercl conceded that prior to the conclusion of their conference , he promised Graybill that he would send him a memo of what he had suggested and shortly thereafter he did send such a letter to the employee.' The General Counsel alleged that, in the aforesaid meeting with Graybill, President Sercl unlawfully solicited the employee's withdrawal from the Union. On the findings set forth above, it is apparent that in his conversation with Graybill, Sercl questioned the employee about his coworkers and the strength of their current sympathies for the Union. As a result of this discussion, at the hearing Sercl could testify that both he and Graybill agreed that , at the moment, Graybill was about the only union adherent left in the appropriate unit. It was undenied that, as Graybill testified, Sercl then asked him "Since there is only one left... could you be persuaded to change your mind?" The foregoing exchange between the Respondent's president and one of the principal union activists occurred on March 13 . On March 1 , the Union had won the election and on March 11, it had been certified . By March 13, the Respondent's management was no. longer free to deal directly with employees who had designated the union as their representative. Accordingly, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that by encouraging Graybill to discuss his dissatisfaction with the Respondent's president, and thereafter, by the action of the latter in openly soliciting the employee to withdraw his support from the Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 312 U.S. 678, 683-684 ; N.L.R.B. v. Pembeck Oil Corp., 404 F. 2d 105 (C.A. 2); Trey Packing, Inc., v . N.L.R.B., 405 F. 2d 334 (C. A. 2). "It was undisputed that several days later , Graybill received a letter from Sercl. The letter, however, was not produced at the hearing. Graybill testified that he turned it over to Lester Peck , international representative for the Union, and that the latter had given it to an associate , one Willard Ferson. Counsel for all parties agreed that at the time of the hearing Ferson was unable to testify because of a physical , or nervous, breakdown which he had incurred The General Counsel stated that the latter fact had come to his attention only on the eve of the hearing so that he was unable to secure the original of the letter from Ferson and, because of the time element, unable to subpoena a copy from the Respondent . Be that as it may, the existence of such a letter was not disputed by the Company. 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(aX5) and (5); Findings and Conclusions With Respect Thereto 1. The approriate unit As noted earlier, the Regional Director, in a Decision and Direction of Election issued on February 6, 1968, found that all meat department employees at the South Sioux City, Nebraska, store of Sunshine Food Markets, Inc., excluding office clericals, the cleanup man, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constituted an appropriate unit. Although the Respondent did not concede the appropriateness of such a unit, it did not appeal the decision of the Regional Director. Neither did it, subsequent to the election, file any objections. At the hearing in the case at bar, the Respondent renewed its initial opposition to the unit finding of the Regional Director. This was overruled by the Trial Examiner on the ground that he was bound to accord finality to the unit determination made in the representation case.16 This ruling is reaffirmed and the appropriate unit is hereby found to be the same as that described above and as set forth, initially, in the Regional Director's Decision. 2. The unilateral changes in working conditions The General Counsel alleged that subsequent to the election the Respondent unilaterally changed the working hours of its meat wrappers, changed the duties of unit employees, changed the day off for unit employees and reduced the number of working hours for two employees in the unit. The Respondent did not deny that the changes had been effected. Its defense was that the changes had been made prior to the time the Union was certified and that, in any event, they had been dictated by economic necessity. The Respondent did not contest the testimony of Helen Plantz that shortly after the election Zajecka posted a new schedule of working hours for the employees in the unit which constituted a change in the daily reporting and departure time for most of the employees. Mrs. Plantz further testified that about this same time her day off was moved from Monday to Tuesday. Employee Graybill testified that late in April his day off was changed from Thursday to Tuesday. On May 11, Mrs. Plantz and a coworker Cheryl Rush, had their hours of work per week reduced from 42 to 40. Mrs. Plantz also testified that subsequent to the election the women in the meat department were given more onerous duties. According to her, a new schedule required that she report to work at 9 a.m., instead of 8 a.m., and stay until 6 p.m., rather than 5 p.m. Mrs. Plantz testified that this change resulted in the women being left with more arduous cleaning chores prior to closing for the day. She further testified that after the election the women were also required to sweep and clean Store Manager Scott's office and scrape labels off the floor of the meat department. "The parties stipulated that the testimony of Max Gerken , vice president of the Respondent , as it appears in the transcript of the representation hearing could be received insofar as it related to the difficulties of bargaining for a unit that included only the meat department employees of one store in the chain. In receiving this stipulation and the transcript of the representation case, the Trial Examiner held that, insofar as Gerken's testimony might constitute support for the Respondent's argument that the original unit determination was erroneous , it would remain in the record only as an offer of proof. Mrs. Plantz' account of the alleged changes in her cleaning duties subsequent to the election was not too convincing. In part, some of the changes resulted from the altered work schedule which Zajecka posted shortly after the election and which was referred to in the paragraph above. Her testimony about the burden of cleaning Scott's office was likewise unpersuasive. She conceded that the office in question was only 8 feet square and that it adjoined the meat department. She also conceded that she could only recall one time after the election when she had had to clean labels off the floor with a razor blade, and that, in fact, the employees in the meat department had always had to perform sweeping. Zajecka testified that sometime before the election Store Manager Scott permitted him to use the manager's office for Zajecka's recordkeeping, and that after this practice began, Scott insisted that at the end of each day the meat department employees should be responsible for cleaning his office. Zajecka further testified, and in this respect, his testimony was credible, that this practice had begun some while prior to the election. According to Zajecka, the emphasis on a thorough cleanup, about which Mrs. Plantz testified at some length, had resulted from an unfavorable examination of the meat department by the local health inspector. From the welter of testimony on this issue which appears in the record, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the practice of cleaning the store manager's office had been established prior to the election and that Zajecka's insistence on a thorough cleanup before and after a visitation from the health department representative was no different subsequent to the election than it had been prior thereto. At the same time, the change in the working schedule which required Mrs. Plantz to report for work at 9 a.m., instead of 8 a.m., and then stay until 6 p.m. instead of 5 p.m., probably resulted in her getting more cleanup work to perform. Insofar as this constituted a change in her work, it was related to the change in her working schedule and will be considered hereinafter in that connection. The Respondent conceded that the rearrangement of the work schedule and the change of Plantz' day off from Monday to Tuesday had been effected about March 8, and without any notice having been given to the Union. At the hearing, it moved to dismiss these allegations on the ground that on this date the Union had not yet been certified. This motion was denied, and said ruling is hereby reaffirmed. The critical date which determined the Respondent's obligation to recognize and bargain with the Union was the date on which the majority of the latter was established. This was March 1, the date of the election, rather than March It, when the Regional Director issued the certification. Laney & Duke Storage Warehouse Co., Inc., 151 NLRB 248, 266-267, enfd. as to this point 369 F.2d 859, 869 (C.A. 5). The Respondent also offered various defenses, based on economic necessity, for the change in work schedules for the employees and the cut back in the work week of Plantz and Rush from 42 to 40 hours. Accepting this testimony as true and the soundness of the managerial decision there involved, the Act still required that subsequent to the election, the Respondent was obligated to meet, or at least offer to meet, and bargain in good faith with the employees' representatives as to any changes with respect to wages, hours, or working conditions. This, the Respondent admittedly failed to do. In thereby effecting, unilaterally, readjustments in the employees' hours of work, alteration of the schedule for days off for some of the employees and a reduction in the SUNSHINE FOOD MARKETS number of hours in the work week for Plantz and Rush, the Respondent acted in derogation of the Union's status as the bargaining agent for the unit . In so doing, the Respondent must be, and is, found to have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 742-743. Moreover, in view of the fact that the decrease in hours for Plantz and Rush affected a term or condition of their employment, the Respondent's unilateral action in this regard also violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. The bargaining conferences On April 3 and 18, the parties met for the only two collective bargaining sessions which were held. The conferences took place in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, at the law offices of Attorney John E. Burke, counsel for the Respondent. At the first session Lester Peck and Robert Hanson, international representative and business agent, respectively, represented the Union, and Attorney Burke and President Sercl represented the Respondent. At the second meeting, Union Representative Willard Ferson and Employee John Graybill met with Attorney Burke and Vice President Max Gerken. At the hearing in the present proceeding, Peck and Graybill testified as to the bargaining conferences for the General Counsel and Attorney Burke took the witness stand for the major portion of the testimony offered by the Respondent on this phase of the case . In some instances , the testimony of these witnesses summarized the positions of the parties during both conferences . For this reason and in the present state of the record, it appears more orderly to set forth the findings as to the meetings held on April 3 and 18 on the basis of the subjects covered, rather than by attempting to set them forth separately as to each conference. The findings hereinafter are based on the mutually corroborative testimony of the witnesses, except where otherwise noted. Insofar as there is conflict in the testimony such conflicts will be discussed in detail. At the initial meeting of the parties , the Union and the Company agreed to use, as the basis for their negotiations, the Union 's current contract with Sioux City Discount, Inc., another store in the Sioux City area. To the subjects covered and the agreement , or disagreement, of the parties with respect thereto, we will now turn. Article I - Recognition The parties agreed upon the terms of this clause. Article I - A Check Off The Company rejected this clause on the ground that the machine accounting used by its payroll division could not be changed for so small a unit as that for the seven employees involved. Article II - Hours of Work Section 1. This provided for a 40 hour week and for time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week. The Company objected to any provision for overtime on the ground that it had been company policy for a long while not to schedule overtime. Section 3. This provided that no employee would be required to work a split shift. The Company disagreed on 257 the ground that, whereas no split shifts were in effect at any store, the Employer did not want to preclude the prospect of having such a shift at any particular store. Section 4. Call-in pay. The Company stated that it had no objection to this provision because it had never been company practice to call an employee without giving him work. Section 5. Rest periods. This provision presented no problem because, as the company rperesentative stated, the rest periods provided in the proposed contract were those which the Employer already had in effect. Section 6. Holidays. The Company agreed to this provision since it provided for the same paid holidays as the Employer was already paying. Section 8. Double time pay for Sunday work. The Company stated that it had no Sunday work so that there was no need to discuss this proposal. The Union thereupon agreed with the company position on this section. Section 9. This section provided that one member of the Union should be given time off without pay, but without loss of seniority, to take care of necessary union business. The Company agreed to this language. Article III - Vacations The parties discussed at some length the provisions in the proposed contract on vacations. At that time the Company had a practice of granting its employees sick leave. The proposed contract had no provision for sick leave. Discussion of the vacation provisions of the proposed agreement was tabled when Attorney Burke told the union representatives that the Company was reevaluating its vacation policy and had under consideration a change in its vacation policy that would incorporate its existing sick leave practice. Article IV - Funeral Leave According to both Peck and Burke, the Company agreed to this provision, which allowed an employee up to three days leave with pay to attend the funeral of an immediate family member. Article V - Leave of Absence According to the uncontradicted testimony of Attorney Burke, the Company agreed to all sections of this article as it appeared in the Union's proposed contract. Article VI - Seniority The parties discussed the proposed provision on seniority which would provide for seniority on a company-wide basis. The Company insisted that with respect to promotions, some provision should be made for the consideration of ability as well as seniority. At the end of the second session this issue remained unresolved. Article VII - Hiring of New Employees This term in the proposed contract provided that the Employer would notify the Union whenever additional help was needed. The Company did not approve of this article on the ground that it provided for what was, in effect, a union hiring hall. 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Article VIII - Grievance Procedures This article provided for a grievance procedure that, in its last step, required that the parties submit their differences to final and binding arbitration. The Company expressed its opposition to any provision for arbitration . Instead, the Company suggested that the parties discuss a provision whereby any grievance would be taken first to the district supervisor. If unresolved there, it would be taken to the vice president, and if that did not lead to a satisfactory disposition of the matter, either side could take any action it wanted. The differences of the parties as to this article were never resolved. Article IX - Working Conditions and Regulations Company agreed to this provision. Section 12. This provided that the Respondent would pay for the cost of any physical examination requested by the Employer. The Company agreed to this provision. Section 13. This provided that an authorized union representative would be permitted to visit the store at reasonable hours. The Company agreed to this provision on condition that the union agent checked with the store manager at the time of his arrival." Article X - Employer Rights This article provided that all of the Employer's rights, responsibilities and authority not specifically limited by the express terms of the agreement would remain exclusively the rights of the Employer. The Company agreed to the language in this provision. Section 1. This provided that frocks, aprons and uniforms required by the employer would be furnished and laundered free of charge to the employee and that any tools required would likewise be provided to the employee without cost. Sercl stated that the Company already followed this practice and that it was not opposed to this section. Section 2. This provided that no employee would have anything which he was already receiving taken from him as a result of any provision in the contract. The Company agreed to this section. Section 3. This clause related to the hiring of apprenctices. The Company at first objected to it, but Peck then stated that the provision need not constitute any obstacle to an agreement because apprentice meat cutters were rarely available. Section 4. This provided that when a journeyman was required to perform the duties of head meat cutter for more than one week, he would receive the higher rate of pay, but that if a journeyman temporarily filled the job of another employee getting a lower rate, the journeyman's rate would not be reduced. The Company asked for more time to consider this provision. Section 6. This provided that an employee laid off and then rehired would not be required to take a lower rate of pay than that which he was receiving at the time of layoff. The Company agreed to this provision. Section 8. This provided that the parties sign three copies of the agreement , one to be kept by the Employer, the second by the Union and a third copy to be posted in the shop. The Company objected to the provision on the third copy and would agree only to a stipulation that the manager keep a copy in his office available for inspection by the employees upon request. Section 9. This provided for up to four days of sick pay for injuries arising out of and during the course of employment . At the time the Respondent had a sick leave plan in effect for all its employees. Attorney Burke testified , without contradiction, that at the collective bargaining sessions he told the union representatives that the Company's existing plan was better for the employees than the one in the union proposal and that the Company would prefer to keep its own plan. There was no evidence that the Union was adverse to this suggestion. Section 10. This provided for the display of the Union Shop Card at the Respondent's meat department. The Company agreed to comply. Section 11. This provided that employees would not be required to take inventory on any holiday or after 5 p.m. on the eve of Christmas or New Year's Day. The Article XI - Insurance This provided that any existing company pension policy and insurance plan in effect at the time of execution of the collective-bargaining agreement would continue throughout the life of the agreement. Attorney Burke testified that the Company told the union representatives that the Respondent was revising its whole insurance plan and that when this was accomplished the Union would be informed. Burke also told the Union that the Company's profit sharing plan was in effect pursuant to a contract between the Respondent and a bank and that it could not be changed at the behest of only 7 employees out of 477. Burke further testified, and his testimony in this regard was undenied , that he told the Union that if the employees in the unit wanted to withdraw from the plan they could do so, and that if they remained, insofar as the Company contemplated any changes in the pension plan it would negotiate with the Union as to the effect such changes would have on the unit employees . Peck's testimony as to this discussion did not contradict or deny the account to which Attorney Burke testified. According to Peck, at their bargaining conferences Burke told them that, as to the Company's pension and profit sharing plan, the seven unit employes would be treated the same as the rest of the employees, "no better [and] no less than any of the rest." Article XII - Duration of Agreement This article in the contract, which the Union offered as a format for discussion, provided that the agreement would be in effect from September 3, 1967, to September 31, 1970. The bargaining sessions between the Company and the Union were held in April 1968. To what extent, if any, the Union suggested a change in the term of the proposed agreement the record is silent. It is clear that the Respondent, through Attorney Burke, proposed that the term of any agreement be for two years rather than one. There is nothing in Peck 's testimony or anywhere else in the record to suggest that the Union was opposed to the Company's proposal in this regard. The appendix to the proposed contract dealt with a wage structure. On this subject the Respondent's "Article IX of the proposed contract also had a section 5 on payment for deliveries made outside working hours , and a section 7, on service to customers in a store at closing time . There was no testimony in the record, however, as to whether either of these sections was discussed by the parties. SUNSHINE FOOD MARKETS 259 representatives referred to two company-wide wage increases which been put into effect only a short while before. Burke testified that he stated that the Company was opposed to any further increases at that time or to the incorporation of any wage structure in the contract." Peck testified that the Company assured the Union that it would not reduce any wages , but that in the meantime it could not give any wage increases to the meat department in South Sioux City because to do so would compel the Respondent to give a similar raise to all employees in the division. On this subject, Attorney Burke testified that at the bargaining sessions he reiterated that the Company had been operating on the principle of uniform conditions throughout the entire division and that the Company did not feel that it could give the meat department in Store 8 benefits that it did not immediately extend to all other employees in the division. He further testified, and without contradiction, that he told the Union that, if a general pay raise was planned at any date in the future, the Company would negotiate with the Union as to its effect on the employees in the unit. Subsequent to April 19, the parties held no further meetings. In a letter, dated May 3, which Attorney Burke wrote to Robert L. Hanson , business agent for the Union, the company attorney proposed that the parties hold a third meeting on May 9. Hanson at first agreed to meet on the last mentioned date, but later telephoned Burke to tell him that one of the Union's negotiators would be unavailable and that, as a result, the Union would have to ask that the meeting be cancelled.18 On about May 20, Peck telephoned Attorney Burke to ask whether another meeting could be arranged. Peck proposed that any such meeting be held in Sioux City. Burke demurred on the ground that the initial meetings had been held in Sioux Falls with the tacit consent of the Union and that, for this reason, he did not care to change. Peck then asked whether another meeting would be worthwhile. According to Peck, Burke told him "I don't know about yours [position], but there sure isn't in ours." Burke's testimony was in substantial accord with that of Peck. According to company counsel, when Peck asked whether there was any point in arranging a further meeting he told the union representative : " I wouldn't know if there was any point in meeting or not. . I really hadn't changed my mind about anything I had discussed with him,. . . in particular in those areas which I thought were quite inflexible, but certainly we were willing, we had a legal obligation and we would sit down in good faith and try to negotiate a contract. It was up to him to decide whether or not it was worthwhile." From the testimony of these two witnesses it is apparent that the conversation was concluded with neither of the participants taking any further affirmative step to arrange for another meeting. Insofar as the record indicates, there "In November or December 1967 the Company had given all its employees an increase of 10 cents per hour . On January 29, 1968, it had given them another increase in the same amount. The latter raise was given after the union campaign had begun . The Company, however, described it as a raise which had been scheduled prior to the advent of a labor organization and the General Counsel conceded that he was not basing any unfair labor practice allegation on the facts in connection with these wage increases. "The foregoing findings as to the arrangements for a third meeting are based on the credible testimony of Attorney Burke When on the stand, Hanson averred that he had no knowledge as to any such arrangements as those found above. Hanson's testimony, and his asserted lack of any recollection on this issue, was totally lacking in candor and most unpersuasive. was no further communication between the parties thereafter. Concluding Findings The General Counsel contends that the Respondent failed to bargain in good faith, that this was apparent both from its conduct during the course of the two sessions which the parties had, and also from the position which its counsel manifested both before the election was held and after bargaining began. It is clear from the record that Respondent's counsel bitterly attacked the Regional Director's unit determination when the decision issued in the representation case . Thus, in a letter dated February 13, 1968, Attorney Burke assailed the validity of the Regional Director's conclusion as to the appropriate unit on the ground that it was in conflict with N.L.R.B. v. Purity Foods Stores, 354 F.2d 926 (C.A. 1) (unit determination in 150 NLRB 1523 remanded to Board for further consideration ); 376 F. 2d 497 (C.A. 1) (Board order set aside), cert. denied 389 U.S. 959. He concluded this letter with the statement: [Wje will, of course, refuse to comply with any recognition order put out by your office and are only going through the motions of this election in the hopes that that is an easy way to dispose of this matter. Later, in another letter dated June 18, 1968, written in response to the Regional Director's notification that the Union had filed a charge alleging that the Respondent had refused to bargain in good faith, Attorney Burke stated, with reference to the negotiations which had taken place: There has been some difficulty in the bargaining because the Board made a clear legal error in trying to establish this one store as a separate unit. The Union would like to have the last inch of the dog's tail wag the dog and that's sometimes very difficult. In his brief, the General Counsel contends that the attitude of the Respondent's counsel, as manifested by the foregoing excerpts from his correspondence, was displayed throughout the negotiations had with the Union, and that during those meetings the Respondent approached bargaining with a closed mind and without any intention of making a good faith effort to compose its differences with the Union. In support of this contention, the General Counsel relies upon the fact that the Respondent refused to incorporate a wage structure in any proposed contract, did not advance any counterproposals, insisted on meeting in Sioux Falls, rather than in Sioux City, and throughout the course of negotiations maintained that any change in wages or other conditions of employment for the unit employees would have to be deferred until they could be put into effect for all of the employees in the entire division. The record is, indeed, clear that the arrival of the Union was not welcomed by the Respondent and that the Regional Director's unit determination was greeted with outright disdain by the Respondent's attorney. Nevertheless, after the election the Respondent did not file objections and it did agree to meet with the Union for negotiations . Apart from the background of what preceded the bargaining sessions and on which background the General Counsel relies heavily, the rest of the evidence on which the General Counsel' s case is dependent in this connection must be found in the record of the bargaining sessions. 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is significiant that in this case there were only two meetings, followed by the Respondent's arranging for a third which was subsequently cancelled at the Union's request. In a final telephonic exchange between representatives of the parties the Respondent 's attorney stated that the Company had not changed its position on any of the issues involved, but that it was ready to sit down at another meeting whenever the Union desired. The Union never requested another meeting. The General Counsel contends that under the circumstances present here , another meeting would have been a waste of time. That is not at all clear from the record. The findings set forth earlier as to the negotiations held on April 3 and 18 establish that the Company agreed to many of the provisions in the Union's proposed contract. It is true that the Company stated at the outset that it was opposed to a checkoff, final and binding arbitration of grievances , and a wage increase for the meat department employees . However, in connection with this last issue, the Respondent was able to point out that it had within the preceding five months granted two company-wide increases . Further, it was undoubtedly a problem for the Respondent to consider the grant of any wage increase to the seven meat department employees that would not result in demands from its other 450 to 500 employees for similar benefits. An employer is not required to make a concession as to a union's wage demand, or to any other demands, for that matter, to establish its good-faith participation in collective bargaining . N.L.R.B. v. American National Insurance Co., 343 U.S. 395 . Here the General Counsel's allegation that Respondent engaged in bad faith bargaining is largely dependent upon what occurred at only two bargaining sessions . After the second session the Respondent took the initiative to arrange a third meeting. When the Union, for reasons of its own, cancelled that session , it never thereafter sought another meeting, apparently on the assumption that no further concessions could be secured. The Union' s assumption in this regard may have been correct . The Trial Examiner, however, does not agree that on the basis of this record any further meeting would have involved a futile expenditure of time and effort. In the light of the facts set forth above, the Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that during the collective bargaining sessions the Respondent was guilty of bad faith bargaining . Accordingly, dismissal will be recommended for the allegation in the complaint that the Respondent's course of conduct at these meetings violated Section 8(a)(5). 4. The alleged unfair labor practice strike The General Counsel's allegation as to the character of the strike was premised upon the assumption that the Respondent displayed such bad faith during the bargaining conferences that it stalemated the negotiations and precipitated the strike . On this ground, the General Counsel contends that the work stoppage here involved was an unfair labor practice strike. Even if it was found that Respondent displayed bad faith in the collective bargaining sessions, the Board does not hold that a strike which follows such a course of conduct is, in every instance, an unfair labor practice strike . There must be a causal link between the unlawful refusal to bargain and the work stoppage. N.L.R.B. v. Thompson & Co., 208 F.2d 743, 749 (C. A. 2); Rogers Brothers Company of California, 169 NLRB No. 124 (TXD); Heart of America Meat Dealers Association, 168 NLRB No. 110 (TXD). Here, the last communication between the Union and the Company was had on about May 20 , 1968, at which time, as found above , Union Representative Peck and Attorney Burke had a telephone conversation and neither sought a further meeting . There is no evidence in the record as to what occurred between that date and the initiation of the strike on June 13 . Whether, after May 20, the Union held any meetings with the employees , whether the course of the bargaining was discussed by the employees at any such meetings, or whether the strike was called solely to press for a wage increase or other economic benefits, is left for conjecture since the record is completely silent on this issue. In any event, the earlier conclusion of the Trial Examiner that the Respondent did not display bad faith during the bargaining impels the further conclusion in this instance that the strike which began on June 13 was economic in character and was not an unfair labor practice strike. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union is a labor organization, all within the meaning of the Act. 2. All meat department employees at the South Sioux City, Nebraska, store of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, with the exception of office clericals, the cleanup man, professional employees, guards and supervisors. , 3. At all times since March 1 , 1968, the Union has been the exclusive representative, for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. 4. By unilaterally changing the work schedules and reducing the hours of certain employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 5. By unilaterally reducing the hours of work of Helen Plantz and Cheryl Rush, the Respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 6. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing it employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 7. The work stoppage which began on June 13, 1968, was, from its inception and thereafter , an economic strike. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. SUNSHINE FOOD MARKETS 261 Having found that on May 11, 1968, the Respondent unilaterally reduced the hours of employment of Helen Plantz and Cheryl Rush in violation of Section 8(a)(3), (5), and (1) of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent make these employees whole for any loss of earnings that they may have suffered by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which they normally would have earned from the aforesaid date to the date of Respondent reinstatement of their former schedule of hours. The Crestline Company , 133 NLRB 256, 258-259; Dickten & Masch Mfg. Co., 129 NLRB 112, 113." The backpay provided for herein shall be computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon . Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Finally, since it has been found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by reducing the hours of work of the aforesaid employees and by changing the work schedules of the unit employees without bargaining with the Union over its decision to do so, it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from making any unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment without consulting the employees' designated bargaining agent. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examines hereby issues the following: ORDER Sunshine Food Markets, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 521 , as the exclusive representative of its employees in the bargaining unit described below, by taking action without prior consultation with said organization with respect to hours, work schedules and other terms and conditions of employment. The bargaining unit is: All meat department employees at the South Sioux City, Nebraska store , with the exception of office clericals, the cleanup man, professional employees, guards and supervisors. (b) Threatening employees with the loss of benefits for enlisting the support of the Union. (c) Coercively, or otherwise unlawfully , interrogating employees concerning their union activities or sympathies. (d) Soliciting employees to withdraw from the aforesaid union or any other labor organization. (e) In any like, or related manner , interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form , join, or assist the above-named , or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: "Of course, after the obligation to bargain with the Union has been satisfied, the employer may lawfully reduce the hours of employees in the appropriate unit. Town & Country Manufacturing Co.. Inc., 136 NLRB 1022, 1030, enfd . 316 F.2d 846 (C.A. 5). (a) Make whole Helen Plantz and Cheryl Rush for any loss of earnings suffered as the result of the Respondent's unlawful unilateral reduction in their working hours, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled, "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay, if any, which may be due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its premises in South Sioux City, Nebraska, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted 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 the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps it has 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 Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order.' "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps the 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 National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the bargaining unit described below, by taking action without prior consultation with said organization with respect to hours of employment, work schedules and other conditions of employment . The bargaining unit is: All meat department employees at our South Sioux City, Nebraska store, with the exception of office clericals, the cleanup man, professional employees, guards and supervisors. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with the loss of benefits for enlisting the support of the aforesaid Union. WE WILL NOT coercively , or otherwise unlawfully, interrogate employees concerning their union activities or sympathies. WE WILL NOT solicit employees to withdraw from the aforesaid union or any other labor organization. 262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT in any like , or related manner, interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees, in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named, or any other, labor organization to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities WE WILL make whole Helen Plantz and Cheryl Rush for any loss of earnings suffered as the result of our unilateral reduction in their working hours SUNSHINE FOOD MARKETS, INC (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 610 Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City , Missouri 64106, Telephone 374-5282