Jack & Jill Stores

458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Nash-Finch Company d/b/a Jack & Jill Stores and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL- CIO, District Union 271. Case 17-CA-3697 September 17, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCUL1oCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On April 28. 1969, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the 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. lie further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter. the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(h) 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 ['he Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith. 'I he complaint alleges (1) that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by its August 31, 1968, refusal to bargain with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters as representative of the employees in the meat departments of Respondent's three Grand Island, Nebraska stores, and (2) that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by various acts of coercion and interference directed against the union activities of its employees. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent had, as charged, violated Section 8(a)(5), and had also committed violations of Section 8(a)(1) in most of the respects alleged. The Respondent has filed exceptions to the violations so found. After careful consideration of the record and the arguments based thereon, we conclude that the Section 8(a)(1) findings made by the Trial Examiner are proper, but 'Subsequently , the Charging Party filed a motion to remand this case to the trial Examiner for lurther consideration of his Findings in the light of N L R B v Gttcel Packing Co, 395 U S 575 The Respondent filed an opposition to the motion in view of our disposition of the cast, there is no occasion for consideration of this case under the principles enunciated in Gicsel Packing Co , and the motion is denied that his finding of an 8(a)(5) violation is not. We shall discuss below only those facts relevant to our disposition of the 8(a)(5) allegation. The Union has represented the meat departments in Respondent's four stores in Hastings. Nebraska. for a number of years. In August 1968, the Union began organizing the meat department employees at Respondent's three stores in Grand Island, Nebraska, about 25 miles from Hastings. At a meeting at the Labor Temple on August 20, the Union obtained signatures from seven nonsupervisory Grand Island meat department employees. Also present at the meeting were two Grand Island meat department supervisors, who worked at different stores. While the two supervisors also signed cards that evening, there is no showing that the,, solicited or coerced the other seven to sign. The Union made its demand for recognition the next day, August 21, and the Respondent declined by letter of August 31, saying that it believed that the question of representation should he determined by an election. Between these two dates, the Respondent had a complement of 16 employees in the appropriate three-store meat department unit. The Union, accordingly, needed nine cards in order to establish a valid claim of majority representation during this period. The seven cards signed at the meeting by nonsupervisory employees were properly counted by the Trial Examiner toward this majority. The two cards signed by the admitted supervisors are, of course, excluded from the count. The General Counsel, however, contends, and the Trial Examiner found, that two other cards obtained on the night of August 20 are valid cards which may be used in establishing a majority. In our view, the Trial Examiner erred in counting these two cards, and it follows that the Union's claim of representative status on the critical dates must fail for want of majority representation. These two disputed cards were solicited on August 20 by the two supervisors who had attended the meeting earlier that evening. Alter the meeting, Meat Department Manager Dawkins went to the home of employee Bishop, vvhoni he had never previously visited. Bishop did not work in the same store as Dawkins, but she knew that he was a supervisor, and she had worked at his store as a demonstrator at one time. The evidence shows that Dawkins solicited Bishop to sign a card, and that she compiled. Her testimony indicates that she had previously decided to sign a card if a majority of her tellovv employees did so. and. upon being told by Dawkins that a majority had signed. she agreed to sign also. The Trial Examiner found that the [act that Bishop's card was solicited by a supervisor did not affect the validity of the card. lie reasoned that since Bishop had said that she would sign it a majority did, this factor was the only critical condition to her signing, and the fact of supervisory solicitation became irrelevant. 178 NLRB No 77 JACK & JILL STORES The other supervisor who had attended the meeting of August 20 was Roberts. head meatcutter in employee Moeller's store. After the meeting, Roberts and Hansen (a rank-and-file employee in the same store) %isited Moeller, and they both solicited her to sign a card. As in Bishop's case, Moeller testified that she had previously determined to sign for the Union if a majority of her fellow employees did. When Roberts told her that they had, she signed up. The Trial Examiner again reasoned that Moeller's focus on signing once a majority was attained nullified any influence that Roberts' solicitation might have had by x irtue of his supers isory position. Ile therefore validated her card. The Board has held that the solicitation of authorization cards by supervisors raises a substantial question about the reliability of such cards and renders them invalid Heck's Inc., 156 NLRB 760, 767; ;i.T.1 Warehouse, Inc., 169 NLRB No. 75. Testimony of the two employees as to their state of mind in signing the cards is immaterial, N.L.R B. v. Sunshine Mining Corp , I10 F.2d 780, 790 (C.A. 9), NLR B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, and may not he relied upon for the purpose of curing the defect inherent in cards procured directly by supervisors. Accordingly, since the Union did not represent a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, we shall dismiss the Section 8(a)(5) allegation of the complaint. In accordance with our findings, we do not adopt paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Trial Examiner's Conclusions of Law and that part of his recommended remedy relating to recognition and bargaining 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, as modified herein, and hereby orders that the Respondent. Nash-Finch Company d/b/a Jack & Jill Stores, Grand Island, Nebraska, its officers, agents. successors. and assigns. shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified- I. Delete subparagraph 2(a) of the Recommended Order and redesignate the succeeding subparagraphs accordingly. 2. Delete from the notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision the first two full paragraphs. beginning respectively "WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively" and "WE WILL sign a written contract." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION Wii LIAM J. BROW,,, Trial Examiner: This proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to its the "Act," came on 459 to he heard at Grand Island, Nebraska, on February 11 and 12, 1969. The original charge of unfair labor practices had been filed October 9. 1968,' by the above-indicated Charging Party, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Union," and the complaint herein was issued January 7. 1969. by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board acting through the Board's Regional Director for Region 17. It alleged, and the duly filed answer of the above indicated Respondent, hereinafter sometimes relerred to as the "Company," denied the commission of unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. At the hearing the parties appeared and participated as noted above with full opportunity to present evidence and argument on the issues Subsequent to the close of the hearing briefs were received from all parties and have been fully considered. On the entire record herein and on the basis of my observation of the witnesses, 1 make the following FINDINGS of FACT I. Tilt! BLSINI•SS OF 1HF COMPANY The pleadings and evidence indicate and I find that the Company is a corporation organled and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Minnesota and engaged in the business of retail selling of grocery and related products at locations in several midwestern states including locations in Grand Island and Hastings. Nebraska. In the course of its business operations in Nebraska the Company annually receives products valued in excess of S50,000 and shipped to its Nebraska locations directly from points outside the State of Nebraska. The annual volume of retail sales at the Nebraska locations exceeds S500,000. I find, as the Company concedes, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the purview of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act iI. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The pleadings and evidence establish that the Union is a labor organization within the purview of Section 2(5) of the Act iii. THE UNi' AIR LABOR PRACTICrS This case concerns events occurring at the Company's retail stores in Hastings and Grand Island, Nebraska, in late summer and fall of 1968. The Union has had collective-bargaining relations with the Company covering the four Hastings stores= for a substantial number of' years prior to 1968 and in August commenced an organizational campaign directed at the Company's three Grand Island locations The union campaign was directed by Union Representatives Robert Parker and Vernon Allen, the latter being also Union first vice president. The pleadings establish the appropriateness of the unit involved in the Grand Island locations, vi all full-time and regular part-time meat market employees employed in the meat department of the Company's Grand Island stores, including meat cutters, meat wrappers and cleanup boys. but excluding office clerical employees, food clerks, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. 'Dates heremaft,;r relate to the year 1968 unless otherwise indicated 'The Hastings stores are located at West Heights, Hillcrest, West Mall 460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The pleadings also establish the supervisory status of the following Company representatives. Charles Engh, Superintendent of Retail Operations Alvin Gross, Nebraska Division Manager Clayton Kent, Zone Store Manager Don Petersen, Head Meat Cutter, West Heights Store Jimmie Hansen. Head Meat Cutter, Hillcrest Store Wes Kensinger, Head Meat Cutter, West Second Store Robert Dawkins, Head Meat Cutter, South Locust Store Johnny Roberts, Head Meat Cutter. North Broadwell Store y A. The Refusal To Bargain It appears from a stipulation of the parties (General Counsel's Exhibit 2) that at all material times, i.e., throughout the period August 20 to October 10, the total number of employees in the above-mentioned unit varied between 14 and 16. General Counsel's Exhibits 3 through 9, inclusive, are union authorization cards signed by seven employees' who remained members of the bargaining unit at all material times. These seven cards were obtained by Union Representative Parker at a meeting in the Labor Temple in Grand island on August 20, and constitute an unequivocal authorization of the Union as the signers' bargaining agent. There appears to be no question as to their validity as designations of the Lnion as the collective-bargaining representative of the signers. The August 20 meeting at the Labor Temple was attended by Robert Dawkins and Johnny Roberts, meat department managers of the Company's South Locust and North Broadwell stores. Their supervisory status is established by the pleadings Following the meeting Dawkins visited Ellen Bishop, an employee of the North Broadwell store who knew of Dawkins supervisory status at the South Locust store Bishop had previously let it be known that if a majority of employees signed for the Union she would also sign, she understood Dawkins to say on the night of August 20 either that the Union had a majority or that they were pretty sure that they had a majority She thereupon signed an authorization card (Charging Party's Exh. 2). her signature being witnessed by Dawkins. In the circumstances of this case it cannot be said that Dawkins, in any realistic sense, solicited her signature nor that his status as a supervisor at a store other than the one in which she worked affected the validity of her card. See I T.T Sem r- Conductors, Inc., 165 NLRB No. 98, and Ozark '%'Iotor Lines, 164 NLRB No. 41 1 conclude that Bishop's card constituted a valid designation of the Union as her collective-bargaining representative. With respect to the card executed by Marlene Moeller it appears that she was solicited to sign by her fellow-employee Hansen and by her supervisor Roberts. Her testimony is, however, that she had previously determined to sign a card if the majority of her fellow-employees did and when she was informed that they had, that was all the information she needed to sign the card. Her testimony also indicates that she had determined to sign sometime before August 20 on the and South Elm, the Grand Island locations are at North Broadwell, West Second and South Locust The distance between Hastings and Grand Island is about 25 miles 'The employee-signers are Arthur Hansen. Emma Kammervell, Stephen Wheeler, Eileen York, Richard Batt, Robert Krebsbach, and Barbara Longsinc basis of the arguments put forth to her by Hansen. In the circumstances I can only conclude that her decision to sign was completely unaffected by any supervisory influence on the part of Roberts and I conclude that her card was a valid designation of the Union as her bargaining agent Helen Green, an employee of the West Second store testified that she signed a union card early in September and gave it to Krebsbach for transmittal to Allen. This card apparently was lost or mislaid and she signed a second card on December 17 (G.C. Exh 29). It is clear that General Counsel's Exhibit 29 is a replacement for the card she originally signed and I conclude that she must be regarded as one of the card signers for the Union as of early September. In this regard the conclusion reached is buttressed by the fact there appears to be no contest of her signature on General Counsel's Exhibit 28(d) in which she purports to resign from the Union thereby indicating her prior authorization of the Lnion as her representative Thomas Oshlo commenced work as a regular part-time employee sometime about 2 or 3 months prior to August 29 when he signed a union card (Charging Party's Exh. I). Present at the time he signed the card were employees Bishop, Moeller, and Hansen and Supervisor Roberts. His testimony is that Roberts, who witnessed his signature on the card, did not solicit his signature but merely said that the card was there for him to sign if he wanted to It appears plain that there was no supervisory influence conditioning or causing his signature and I conclude that his card should be regarded as a valid designation of the Union as of August 29. It appears, however, that he was transferred to the grocery department on August 31 and his card cannot be regarded as an effective designation with respect to the unit here involved subsequent to that date. It appears that at the time of its original demand on for recognition, which was made by letter from Parker to Engh on August 21 the Union had secured valid authorizations from nine unit employees and shortly thereafter secured additional authorization cards (Green's and Oshlo's) I conclude that on August 21 and thereafter the Union was the majority representative of employees in the unit at least until October 5 when employees resigned from membership in the Union under circumstances hereinafter set forth. Parker's August 21 letter requested negotiations for both the Hastings and Grand Island meat market employees and, with respect to the claim therein of majority status at Grand Island. asserted a willingness to submit the authorization cards for a check of the signatures against signatures in the keeping of the Company by a neutral third party. Gross replied by letter of August 31 asserting, in elfect, that there was a representation question involved which should be submitted to the Board. On September 3, Parker by letter persisted in meeting with respect to the Hastings employees and on September 6 Gross explained that the representation question related only to Grand Island and that the Company was prepared to meet concerning Hastings. By letter of September 10. Parker proposed a date of September 18 for negotiations, tacitly accepting the limitation contained in Gross' September 6 letter, viz that bargaining would relate only to the Hastings locations The September 18 date was shifted by mutual agreement to September 23 and on that date Parker. Allen, and Tate. the Company's attorney, met in the latter's office. At the September 23 meeting and at another meeting on September 25, there is a conflict in JACK & JILL STORES the accounts of Parker and Tate as to whether the discussions related only to Hastings or also embraced other conditions of employment at Grand Island. Allen did not testify on the matter. I credit Tate' s testimony that these discussions related only to Hastings and that recognition was not demanded for Grand island at these meetings . This conclusion also finds support in Tate's letters of September 24 requesting an election and by the filing of the RM petition covering Grand Island on September 25. With respect to the RM petition concerning Grand Island the record indicates that the petition was dismissed by the Regional Director but the reason for dismissal does not appear in the evidence. At a union meeting on September 4 in Grand Island. a vote was taken on whether or not to strike to obtain the Omaha-Lincoln rates for meat department employees of the Grand Island and Hastings stores. The vote was unanimous in favor of striking. Gross and Engh were informed of the vote by Head Meat Cutters Dawkins and Hansen. Gross communicated with Engh and sometime towards the end of September consulted the Company attorney respecting the Company's rights in view of reports that employees were dissatisfied with the Union. On September 25 and October 2. RM petitions were filed by the Company covering, respectively, the Grand Island and Hastings Stores. and Gross was advised that it would be permissible for company officials to provide employees with union membership revocation forms. Sometime after the September 4 strike vote, Dawkins overheard employees of his South Locust store expressing their dissatisfaction with the imminent possibility of a strike and their desire to get out of the Union This desire was stirred by employee awareness of the possibility of union fines being imposed for failure to support the Union by honoring picket lines. Gross secured the legal advice that it would be permissible to provide employees with union membership withdrawal forms and he caused to be reproduced (G C. Exh 28A-J) withdrawal notices addressed to the Union and signed on October 5 by all the employees of the Grand island (and some Hastings employees) listed above as having signed union authorization cards. The signers also sent telegrams to the Union expressing their desire to withdraw from membership. The evidence is clear that Dawkins, head meat cutter at the South Locust Store and a supervisor, was the first signer of the withdrawal petition and that Dawkins and Gross visited all three Grand Island stores and advised employees that a strike appeared imminent and that many employees desired to be free to cross picket lines without incurring liability for union fines and that their desires could be attained by signing the forms provided by the Company. The evidence clearly preponderates in favor of the conclusion that the employees were advised that in view of reports of the forthcoming strike and the desires of some employees to continue work despite a strike the Company was providing membership withdrawal forms as a means of enabling employees to decide among themselves whether they wished to utilize the forms as a means of avoiding liability for union fines. The Company relies on Clark Control Division of A.O Smith Corp., 166 NLRB No. 55, and Martin Theatres of Georgia, 126 NLRB 1054, as requiring the conclusion that the conduct of its supervisors in preparing and presenting to employees the union withdrawal forms constituted no unfair labor practice. But in Clark Control Division there was a complete absence of any contemporaneous anti-union campaign and in Martin Theatres the Board 461 adopted the Examiner's statements that It is well established that an employer may not prepare, circulate or solicit employees' signatures to revocations of union designations . . .Thc basic question . . . is whether the employees decide of their own free will, independently of employer solicitation to withdraw their union designations. In the instant case, while there may have been rumblings of employee concern about the possibility of strike action, it appears clear to me that the Company over-reacted and grasped the opportunity to take affirmative steps to encourage and assist the employees in revocation of their Union designations. Furthermore, as appears hereinafter, there were contemporaneous unfair labor practices in the nature of interference with employee self organizational rights which can only be regarded not only as having influenced the climate in which employees were presented with the union revocation forms, but as a rejection of the collective-bargaining principle within the doctrine enunciated in Joy Silk Mills, 85 NLRB 1263 enfd. 185 F.2d 732, cert. denied 341 U.S. 914 Since the Company admits that it has at all times since August 31, refused to bargain with the Union respecting the Grand Island unit, I find and conclude that it has by such refusal engaged in an unfair labor practice defined within the scope of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.4 B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. Don Petersen Don Petersen was at all material times the head meatcutter of the West Heights store in Hastings and admittedly a supervisor. The complaint alleges and the Answer denies that Petersen (1) on or about September 28 informed an employee that the Company desired to organize a meeting to rid itself of the Union; (2) on or about October 7 instructed an employee that he should never speak of the Union, and (3) on or about October 3 at the West Heights store and October 5 at the West Mall and South Elm stores solicited or assisted employees to resign from the Union. Fern Bonds, a meat market clerk in the West Heights store and a union supporter, testified that Petersen spoke to her in the back room of the store at about 5 o'clock on September 28 and said that Gross and Engh had spoken to him about calling a meeting of employees to sound out their feelings respecting the Union and about the possibility of some form of nonunion representation in view of the fact that the Company could not meet the wages demanded by the Union and might have to close some stores. Don Petersen testified that the conversation of September 28 occurred after he had determined to assemble employees to talk to Gross without the Union participating in the talk. He denied telling her that Gross or Engh asked him to arrange such a meeting I credit Bonds' account of the conversation. Both Bonds and Petersen were union members at the time of this discussion. Nevertheless, it seems plain that Petersen acted on behalf of management in suggesting to Bonds the possibility of nonunion representation and coupling with 'The Company has denied that the union sought to bargain subsequent to August 21 The record indicates, however, and I find that Parker, whose testimony I t,redit in this regard, testified that there was bargaining respecting Grand Island employees in Tate's office on September 25 and that Parker again requested bargaining in a discussion with Gross on October I 1 at the North Broadwell store. 462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the suggestion the threat of store closing in view of the wage demands of the Union. I find that this conversation constituted an intrusion into Bonds' right to be free from such influence in determining her position respecting the Union and constituted an unfair labor practice within the scope of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act With respect to the allegation that Petersen on October 7 threatened and instructed an employee never to speak of the Union, Bonds testified that upon her reporting for work Petersen called her to the office and told her that the Union had misled him. When Bonds expressed her continuing support of the Union, Petersen, according to Bonds, told her that he did not want to hear her discuss the Union anymore. Petersen testified that the conversation became heated, as Bonds conceded, and that he merely expressed his disinclination to argue further with her. He denied forbidding Bonds to mention the Union again. I credit Petersen's account and recommend dismissal of this count of the complaint Petersen is also alleged to have solicited and/or assisted employees to withdraw from the Union on October 3 at the West Heights store and on October 5 at the West Mall and South Elm stores. Zetha Dillon, an employee of the West Mall store, testified that on October 5 Engh, Peterson. and Hansen came to her store where Hansen and Petersen told her, in the back room, that they were not happy with Union Representative Parker and they thought employees should drop out of the Union; although her testimony is that Petersen did not ask her to sign the withdrawal form it is clear that Petersen made the petition available for her signature after telling her that the Company disapproved of the Union and thought that employees should reject it I find that Petersen did in fact on the occasion in question urge her to sign the withdrawal petition and that thereby the Company engaged in unfair labor practices within the purview of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. At the 'Vest Heights store where Richard Peterson regularly works 4 1/2 hours per week, Engh, according to Richard Peterson's account, introduced Don Petersen and James Hansen and then left them to talk with him. Don Petersen and Hansen had the withdrawal forms available and expressed their disapproval of the Union. While Richard Peterson testified that he had already decided to withdraw and signed before they finished their discussion. it is also clear from his testimony that Don Petersen and Hansen urged him to sign and facilitated his resignation. I find that their conduct constituted interference with Peterson's statutory right to be free from such employer conduct respecting his actions toward the Union 2. Charles Engh Engh is alleged to have, on October 3 at the West Heights store, interrogated an employee concerning his union activities Fern Bonds, a clerk in that store, testified that Engh spoke to her in the hack room on October 3 and asked her why she thought she needed the Union. When she replied that she felt she needed it for her protection. Engh, according to Bonds, replied that that indicated a poor relationship Lngh testified that the conversation in question took place on the selling floor and that after he told her of the filing of the RM petition Bonds stated that she still thought she needed a union to represent her He denied questioning her in any way I credit Bonds' account of the matter and find that on the occasion in question Engh interrogated in a manner and under circumstances constituting interference, restraint, and coercion within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The complaint also alleges that on October 25, at the North Broadwell store Engh urged or instructed employees not to attend union meetings. Ellen Bishop, a wrapper at the North Broadwell store and, as noted above, a union card signer, testified that on October 25, in the course of a discussion about paychecks either Gross or Engh, both being present, advised her not to attend a union meeting because a light attendance might discourage the Union. Engh did not testify on this matter and Gross' testimony is that he merely advised employees that other employees had decided not to attend union meetings. I credit Bishop's testimony that either Gross or Engh advised her not to attend a forthcoming meeting so that a light attendance might discourage the Union. By such advice the Company engaged in interference with employee rights protected under the Act. Engh is also alleged to have solicited or assisted employees to resign from the Union on October 3 and 5 at the South Elm store and on October 5, at the West Mall store. Mildred Fox testified that on October 3, Engh talked to her in the West Mall store where she worked and said that they would have a better relationship without the Union. On October 5, she testified, Engh, together with Petersen and Hansen, talked to her and asked her to sign a paper of resignation from the Union. Engh did not deny these charges and 1 find that on October 3 and 5 Engh solicited an employee to resign from the Union thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The evidence is lacking with respect to similar activities at the South Elm store and I recommend dismissal of the allegations of the complaint in that respect 3 Wes Kensinger Kensinger. manager of the West Second store in Grand island, is alleged on or about October 5 to have threatened employees with reprisals if the Union became the bargaining representative. I am cited to no evidence of record to support this allegation and find none I recommend that it be dismissed. 4. Alvin Gross Gross is alleged to have urged employees not to attend union meetings on October 7 at the West Mall store and on October 25 at the North Broadwell store He is also alleged to have promised employees at the West Second store on or about August 22, benefits as an inducement not to support the Union, to have instructed employees of the West Mall store on October 7 and employees of the North Broadwell store on October 25 not to attend union meetings and to have solicited or assisted employee resignations from the Union on October 5 at the North Broadwell and West Second stores. With respect to the August 22 promise of benefits at the West Second store, employee Richard Batt, a somewhat reluctant witness. testified that shortly after he signed a union card on August 20, Gross and Engh were talking to him in the store basement about the union campaign and in the course of the discussion, Gross said, after Batt complained that Safeway and Hinky Dinky paid higher wages, that the Company employees would be satisfied with what the Company would do after the union campaign was over General Counsel cites cases said to he in support of the conclusion that such an utterance JACK & JILL STORES constituted interference. restraint and coercion. I do not read the cited cases as supporting this view and I find that Gross' totally ambiguous statement cannot realistically be regarded as an unfair labor practice With respect to the solicitation of or assistance in union membership withdrawals on October 5 at the North Broadwell and West Second stores, Bishop and Hansen, North Broadwell emplovices, testified that on or about October 5, Gross stated that they did not need a third party to handle their problems and presented them and other employees with the union withdrawal lorm with the explanation that if the employees sinned they could cross a union picket line without fear of being fined. Later that day Bishop signed but Hansen did not. The presentation of such a petition coupled with argumentation in favor of employee signing appears to he an unwarranted interference into employee rights to he free of employer influence in the matter of joining and assisting the Union and constituted an unfair labor practice within the scope of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act With respect to the West Second store. Helen Green and George Batt testified that Gross presented them with the union withdrawal form and said that their signatures thereon would protect them against union fines in the event it became necessary to cross a picket line Although Batt conceded that Gross did not say that employees had to sign, it is clear that Gross presented the petition with arguments in favor of signing and I find that his words and actions constituted interference with employee rights and violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 5. James Hansen Hansen. head meatcutter at the Hillcrest store in Hastings, is alleged to have solicited or assisted employees to resign union membership on October 5 at the South Elm and West Mall stores. Mildred Fox. a West Mall meatwrapper, testified that on October 5 Hansen and Engh asked her to sign the union withdrawal form because they felt that the) did not need the Union. Richard Peterson, a part-time employee at West Mall, testified to the same effect. Hansen, who appears to have spearheaded the union withdrawal program, did not contradict the accounts of 1-ox and Peterson. I find that Hansen solicited their signatures on the union withdrawal forms and thereby engaged in interference within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. With respect to Hansen's activities at the South Elm store on October 5, Hansen himself testified that he circulated the union withdrawal form but denied telling employees that they had to sign the petition I find that Hansen's circulation of the petition in connection with Engh's exhortation to employees to sign constituted interference within the scope of Section 8(a)(l) 6. Robert Dawkins Dawkins, head mcatcutter at the South Locust store and a supervisor, is alleged to have solicited or assisted employees to resign union membership on October 5 at the North Broadwell and West Second stores Helen Green testified that Dawkins was among the supervisory group who visited her store at West Second on October 5. and presented her and others with the union withdrawal form. She testified that Dawkins urged her to sign as a means of avoiding big fines. Dawkins conceded that he signed the petition and helped circulate it. I find that Dawkins assisted in the procuring of signatures on the 463 withdrawal petition and thereby engaged in acts of interference within the scope of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act As to the North Broadwell store, Ellen Bishop testified that Dawkins was among the group who spoke to her and others in the hackroom of the store and presented her and the others with the membership withdrawal form to sign as a means of avoiding liability for fines in the event of picketing By this action Dawkins intruded into matters reserved under the Act for decision of employees without management interference and I find that on this occasion the Company, through Dawkins, engaged in an act of interference within the scope of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 1y. TFIF EFFECT Ol THE L1l•AIR LABOR PRACTiCI S UPON COMMMLRCE The activities of the Company set forth in section III, above, and there found to constitute unfair labor practices, occurring in connection with the business operations of the Company as set forth in section I. above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing such commerce and the free flow thereof. V. IHE Rr M1•Dy In view of the findings set forth above to the effect that the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce it will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and from like or related unfair labor practices and take such affirmative action including recognition of and bargaining with the Union respecting its Grand Island stores, as appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS of LAW I The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning' of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 All full-time and regular part-time meat market employees employed in the meat department of the Company's Grand Island stores. including meat cutters, meat wrappers and cleanup boys, but excluding office clerical employees, food clerks, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining under the Act. 4. At all material times the Union has been and is the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. 5. By refusing from and after August 31, 1968 to bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive representative of employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit the Company has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. By suggestion the substitution of non-Union in place of union representation, by soliciting employee revocation of prior union authorizations as bargaining agent. by advising employees not to attend union meetings and by coercively interrogating employees concerning union 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representation the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices defined in Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall. I Cease and desist from. (a) Soliciting employee revocation of union designation cards, suggesting the substitution of nonunion for union representation, advising employees not to attend union meetings, coercively interrogating employees concerning union representation (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act. 2 Take the following affirmative action which appears necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive representative of employees in the unit found appropriate as above and embody any understanding reached in a signed memorandum of agreement; (b) Post at the Company's Grand Island and Hastings stores copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "` Copies of said notice. on forms provided by the Board's Regional Director for Region 17, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Company, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained thereafter for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places. including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material: '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 Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the notice If the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" 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 " (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days' from receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. IT IS RE-COMMENDED that the complaint herein be dismissed as to allegations therein of unfair labor practices not herein specifically found to have been engaged in. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPI OYELS 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, District Union 271 and we will on request bargain collectively with the aforesaid union as exclusive representative of our employees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time meat market employees employed in the meat department of our Grand Island stores, including meat cutters, meat wrappers and clean-up boys but excluding office clericals. food clerks, guards and supervisors. WE WILL sign a written contract embodying any agreement resulting from such collective bargaining. We WILT NOl interfere with employee rights under the Act by coercively questioning employees about their union activities, by suggesting forms of nonunion iepresentation, by soliciting employees to revoke their union membership or by advising employees not to attend union meetings NASH-FINCII COMPANY, D/B/A JACK & JILT. STORES (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced. or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 610 Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Telephone 816-374-5282.