Warehouse Market, Inc.

216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Warehouse Market, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 73 of Retail Clerks International Associ- ation, AFL-CIO. Case 16-CA-5458 January 17, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On August 9, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Russell L. Stevens issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and Charging Party filed limited exceptions and supporting briefs. The Charging Party also filed a brief in opposition to the exceptions filed by the Respondent. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order for the additional reasons set forth below. Consistent with the allegations of the complaint, the Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that, in the period preceding the May 5, 1974, termination date of a collective-bargaining contract between Respondent and the Union, Respondent aided and abetted employee decertification activity by conduct violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act; and when that decertification activity culminated in the filing of a decertification petition with the Board on February 15, 1974, Respondent withdrew recogni- tion from the Union and refused to bargain with it, contrary to the provisions of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Although we adopt the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, we believe certain addi- tional rationale to be appropriate in light of the approach taken by Respondent in its exceptions to the 8(a)(5) violation findings and the bargaining order predicated thereon. Respondent takes the position that no valid obligation to bargain can properly be imposed upon it in the context of evidence which , so it asserts, indicates that both the decision made by unit employees to circulate a decertification petition, and the further decision of a majority of said employees The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence to sign the same, was not or could not have been implied or influenced by the 8(a)(1) violations Respondent is found to have committed. As support for this position, Respondent contends that the proven 8(a)(1) violations involved only 1 of the 3 stores composing the unit, viz., the Muskogee, Oklahoma, store, where only 23 of the 56 unit employees were located; the decertification petition was signed by 36 employees, of whom 24 were identified as employees at 2 other stores, 1 located at Claremore and the other at Vinita, Oklahoma; and the General Counsel, in claiming that the decertifica- tion petition did not raise a genuine question concerning representation, relied only on the testi- mony of 5 Muskogee store employees who, though describing unlawful 8(a)(1) conduct by Respondent's agents, did not testify that they informed other employees of that conduct. We find nothing in the facts recited to us by Respondent which warrants finding, as it here suggests, that no significant number of the employees who circulated and signed the decertification petition could have been impelled to do so by any of the unlawful acts Respondent is here bound to have committed. The credited evidence, viewed as a whole, plainly depicts Respondent's pursuit of a course of conduct directed to compelling its employ- ees' abandonment of the Union as their bargaining representative. That course of conduct was eviden- ced in part by serious unfair labor practices, most of which were committed before or shortly after the drafting and circulating of the decertification peti- tion, but before that petition was finally filed. Those unlawful acts included not only threats of reprisal, interrogation, and promises of benefit specifically addressed to individual employees to induce defec- tion from the Union, but also conduct which demonstrated the Respondent's disapproval of the Union to all the employees, such as the disparate and hence unlawful application of the no-talking rule by prohibiting prounion activity and permitting anti- union employee activity, which as the record shows, involved circulation of the decertification petition and solicitation of unit employees to sign it during company time on Respondent's premises; and the encouragement of antiunion activity to the extent of suggesting and allowing employees to take time off with pay to discover what benefits Respondent's Tulsa store employees had received since they had voted out the Union. We cannot, of course, tell with any certainty how many of the 36 employees who signed the decertifica- convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 216 NLRB No. 41 WAREHOUSE MARKET, INC. 217 tion petition would have signed even absent the Respondent's commission of the unfair labor prac- tices supra. But, in the circumstances of this case, we cannot properly infer that all or some, or even a majority of those who signed, did so without any vestige of compulsion attributable to the Respon- dent's unlawful conduct. We cannot discount the teaching of experience and commonsense that employees who, as here, have constant contact with each other at their place of work are not likely to refrain from discussing their employer's demonstra- tions of hostility to a union-especially where the employer's acts include many of so blatant a nature as those which the Respondent here committed. Nor can we discount the facts that the five employees whose credible testimony provided the affirmative evidence of Respondent's unfair labor practices, supra, composed about 10 percent of the total unit complement; that they further testified they would not have signed the decertification petition but for the pressures unlawfully exerted on them by supervi- sors; that they were among the first of the employees whose names appear on the petition; and that the appearance of their names thereon may well have influenced other employees to add their names thereto.2 All of the above considerations militate against our finding in the filing of the decertification petition any reason to excuse Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union, or to otherwise refrain from issuing a bargaining order. Respondent's contrary contentions fly in the face of well-established Board-and court- honored precedents which hold that: (1) We will not conduct a decertification election where, as here, there are unremedied unfair labor practices commit- ted by an employer for the purpose of causing employee disaffection from a validly established union bargaining representative; 3 and (2) we will presume that a validly established union representa- tive continues to enjoy majority support where, as here, its status is questioned by an employer's refusal to bargain, unless the employer is able to prove that he relied on valid, objective considerations in questioning the union's continued majority support.4 Plainly, Respondent could not validly meet that employer burden by reliance on the decertification petition's filing to support its claim of a disaffection by a majority of the employees where, as here, the Respondent's unlawful conduct in large measure created or contributed to the situation which led to such disaffection, and it submitted no other evidence to support such a claim. We therefore, find, as did the Administrative Law Judge below, that Respon- dent's refusal to bargain with the Union was in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and that a bargaining order should appropriately be issued. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Warehouse Market, Inc., Claremore, Vinita, and Muskogee, Oklahoma, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 2 Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Savair Mfg. Co., 414 US. 270 (1973), where the Supreme Court indicated that, although only a few employees may have been directly induced by improper or unlawful means to sign authorization cards for a union, their manifestations of support may, in turn, have had a bandwagon effect on other employees whose signatures may have been solicited without any improper offers having been made to them. 3 See, e.g., Nu-Southern Dyeing & Finishing, Inc., 179 NLRB 573 (1969), enfd. in relevant part 444 F.2d II (C.A. 1, 1971); Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals, A Division of Kaiser Aluminium & Chemical Corporation, 187 NLRB 661 (1969), enfd. 473 F.2d 374 (C.A. 5, 1973). See also Bishop v. N.LR.B., 502 F.2d 1024 (C.A. 5, 1974). Cf. Teleautograph Corporation, 199 NLRB 892 (1972), a case holding that only the filing of a decertification petition which raises a genuine question concerning representation relieves an employer of his obligation to bargain pending resolution of the representation issue. Acting Chairman Fanning and Member Jenkins do not rely on Teleautograph. 4 See, e.g., Celanese Corporation of America, 95 NLRB 664, 671-672 (1951); Cantor Bros., Inc, 203 NLRB 774 (1973); Cnmptex, Inc., et al., 211 NLRB 855 (1974). DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RUSSELL L. STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard at Muskogee, Oklahoma, on June 11 and 12, 1974. The complaint,' issued April 30, 1974,2 is based on charges filed February 15 and March 29, by Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 73 of Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the Union). The complaint alleges that Warehouse Market, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Respondent), violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Issues The issues herein are: 1. Whether Respondent, through its managers or supervisors, engaged in various acts of interrogation, promise of benefits, threats, encouragement of decertifica- tion activity, and similar actions to persuade employees of Respondent to abandon the Union and union support, in each alleged instance violating Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 2. Whether Respondent has refused, and is refusing, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining 1 As amended at hearing, to correct the name of Respondent to Warehouse Market, Inc., to add pars. 7(o) and (p), and to expand par. 12. Said additions and expansions, and amendment of pars. 15 and 16 to conform therewith, are set forth in G.C. Exh. 2. 2 All dates are within 1974, unless otherwise stated. 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD representative of Respondent's employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue orally. Briefs, which have been carefully considered, were filed on behalf of the General Counsel, Respondent, and the Union. Upon the record, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT At all times material herein Respondent has been, and now is, an Oklahoma corporation engaged in the retail sale of food and related nonfood items in a chain of stores located throughout the State of Oklahoma, including stores located in Claremore, Vinita, and Muskogee, Oklahoma. During the past 12 months Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, distributed and sold products, the gross value of which exceeded $500,000. During the same period of time Respondent received goods valued in excess of $50,000 transported directly to its stores from States outside Oklahoma. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 73 of Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Background All employees working at Respondent's stores in Vinita, Claremore, and Muskogee, Oklahoma, excluding meat department employees, pharmacists, supervisors, guards and watchmen, constitute an appropriate unit, as admitted by the pleadings. The Union and Respondent executed an agreement effective May 6, 1973, through May 5, 1974, with successive 1-year periods thereafter unless either party gave the other written notice not less than 60 days in advance of the yearly expiration date, of its desire to terminate. On February 15, employees in the bargaining unit described above filed a decertification (RD) petition, and on February 28, Respondent filed a petition (RM) for an investigation and certification of representative. On March 1, the Union wrote a letter to Respondent and stated its desire to reopen the agreement and negotiate a successor thereto. Certain information was requested, in order to prepare a union proposal. On March 4, Respondent replied to the Union, and stated: Dear Mr. Cook: Your letter of March 1, 1974, addressed to Ware- house Market, Inc. has been referred to my attention. In your letter you request certain information which you state you must have in order to prepare a contract proposal for the Company's consideration. In view of the fact that a question of representation is now pending before the National Labor Relations Board for decision, the Company must decline to furnish such data until the question is resolved. In the event that your Union is chosen by the employees to represent them, we will, of course, proceed immediately to furnish you the requested information and participate in collective bargaining negotiations. We ask that you cooperate with Warehouse Market, Inc. in arranging an election at an early date in order that the employees can decide the question of repre- sentation by secret ballot. Very truly yours, HALL & SUBLETT /s/ Carl D. Hall, Jr. Carl D. Hall, Jr. The Union also requested on May I that Respondent furnish it with information relative to wage rates, but the Respondent did not reply to that request. On May 1, the Regional Director dismissed both the RD and the RM petitions, on the basis that a complaint had been issued which alleged a refusal by Respondent to bargain. The complaint, dated April 30, was based on an original charge filed February 15 (amended on March 29). Attorneys fpr Respondent and for the petitioning employ- ees requested NLRB review of the Regional Director's dismissal of the two petitions.3 Respondent's headquarters for all stores in the State are located in Tulsa. The record shows that the Tulsa store's employees voted against union representation on Decem- ber 7, 1973. Shortly thereafter, Respondent increased the pay and benefits of its Tulsa employees. Commencing the first part of 1974, Respondent held a series of meetings at the Tulsa headquarters. The meetings were attended (separately and individually) by store managers and their assistants. They were called to meet by Tulsa "supervisors," and were attended on the managerial side by, among others, a certain "Alex" (last name not known), who was a consultant and who conducted the meetings. A preliminary first meeting was attended by store managers and their assistants as a group. At that meeting the group was told about the result of the Tulsa employee election, and that management "had won the election." There was discussion about the possibility of using employees from Tulsa in the event stores were struck at Muskogee, Claremore, and Vinita. At all individual meetings union matters were discussed, and managers and their assistants were instructed in how they should conduct themselves in handling union discussions and actions. Managers and their assistants attended a total of 8 or 10 such individual meetings. Ralph Graves, manager at Muskogee, first heard about the RD petition involved 3 The Board affirmed the Regional Directors dismissal of the RM petition , on June 11 , and of the RD petition on July 3. WAREHOUSE MARKET, INC. 219 herein, at one of the Tulsa meetings before the petition was circulated at Muskogee. Betty Blevins is an employee of the Claremore store. She visited an attorney, whose assistance she solicited in drafting an RD petition. Thereafter, she obtained signa- tures on the petition of employees in the Claremore and Vinita stores. She and fellow Claremore employees visited the Muskogee store on two occasions , January 30 and February 9, to obtain signatures. Thereafter, Blevins caused the RD petition and signatures to be filed with the Regional Director, who dismissed the petition because of blocking charges involved herein, as described above. The charges consist of several allegations of 8(axl) actions by supervisors related to initiation and signing of the RD petition, actions intended to undermine the Union, and refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(ax5) of the Act. Respondent denies 8(axl) violations, and alleges that its refusal to bargain is based on good-faith doubt of the Union's majority. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the following named persons are agents and supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act: Clint V. Cox, Ralph Graves, Wesley Pipkins, Frank Blevins, John Lay, and Jay Worth. "asked Ralph if we went non-union would they get the raise they got in Tulsa. lie [Graves ] said he wasn't sure but it would just be natural that we would . He couldn't promise but he said it would be natural if we went non- union." Hollifield also testified that he asked Graves how the Muskogee employees could get a better insurance plan like the Tulsa employees had, and Graves said they "would have to circulate a petition in order to get a chance to vote." Graves denied that he promised raises or any other benefits if the store went nonunion. However, he testified that he talked with employees about the Tulsa benefits and "what the employees in Tulsa got." He also testified that he "asked" or "encouraged" Glenn Hollifield and others "to go to Tulsa and look over the benefits there on company time." Graves stated on cross-examination: Several of them come up to me and asked about a promotion, "When can we be promoted?" They say they want to stock and they say they want to check. I'd tell them, "Well if I could, I'd let you'become a stocker or checker. "True, if you didn't have a Union then sure I'd let you stock or check as a trainee . That way if an opening came up you would have some trainee experience at that." B. Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations 1. The complaint states: (a) On or about January 15 , 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Ralph Graves, promised its employees new and/or increased benefits if they voted the Union out. (b) On or about January 15, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Ralph Graves, promised its employees increased pay rates if they voted the Union out. Glenn Hollifield testified that Ralph Graves (hereinafter Graves) explained to him the benefits that had accrued to Tulsa employees "when they got out of the Union"; and told him "we needed to go to Tulsa and see how the people up there like it since they've gotten out of the union." Mike Brown testified that Graves told him he would get a raise "if we was nonunion like Tulsa," and that Graves asked him if he would like to go to Tulsa with a few others the next day "to see how well they liked it up there and if we would like it." Darrel Arnett testified that Graves and Wesley Pipkins (hereinafter Pipkins) explained to him and other employee's the benefits gained at the Tulsa store after the Union was defeated, and that Pipkins said a raise for everyone should be possible if man hours could be cut after the Union was voted out of Muskogee. Joe Fairchild testified that, when he applied for a job at the Muskogee store, Graves told him "they were trying to go hon-union and if they went non-union it would be better for everybody." John Hollifield testified that Graves urged him to go to Tulsa to observe conditions there, while on paid time, and that he did so . He said his cousin (a bagboy at the store) He also stated on cross-examination: Q. Ralph, why did you authorize the employees to go to Tulsa? A. I honestly didn't think they believed what I told them. I just wanted to clear any doubt in their mind and let them talk to the people and find out for themselves. Q. You wanted them to see first hand the benefits of not being in the Union and talk to the people and find out what the pros and cons were? A. That's right. It is seen by the foregoing that, even considering the testimony in the light most favorable to Respondent, the allegations of the complaint are supported by the record. Graves denied promising benefits if the Union was voted out, but he testified that he discussed and explained the Tulsa nonunion benefits to Muskogee employees ; that he urged employees to go to Tulsa to see those benefits for themselves; and that he permitted Tulsa trips on company time. It is obvious that Graves would not have gone to such length unless he was saying, in effect, that the Tulsa benefits and wages (which clearly were better than those at Muskogee) would be forthcoming if the Union was voted out. However, the case for violation is even stronger when the testimony of Brown, Arnett, Fairchild, and the, two Hollifield brothers is considered. Their testimony is contrary to that of Graves on several important points, but their contradictory statements are credited over Graves. Their demeanor on the stand, their mutual corroboration, and the support their testimony has by the record as a whole impel the conclusion that they are entitled to belief. It is found that these two charges of the complaint are proved. 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The complaint states : "(c) On or about January 15, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Ralph Graves orally interrogated prospective employees concern- ing their union membership , activities and desires." Joe Fairchild testified: A. When I first went up there to apply for a job, he was telling me about the union . He said they were trying to go non-union and if they went non-union if [sic] would be better for everybody. He said the package boys now were getting $1.60 an hour and if they went non-union they would get either $1.80 or $2.00 an hour. He said he didn't really know. He asked me if I went to work there would I vote non-union, and I told him I would so I could get the job, After I said that, I got the job. Q. When you said that he talked to you about this, who did you mean? A. Ralph Graves, the Manager. Graves testified concerning this conversation: A. I told him that we had a union store there and he would be required to join the union. I told him what the union dues were, who the union steward was, and I proceeded to tell him what happened in Tulsa. Q. Did you ever ask him if he was for the union? A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. Or against the union? A. No sir. Q. Did you ever tell him that if the store went nonunion that package boys would get more money? A. No, I did not. Since no other person was present at this conversation, resolution of the controversy depends solely upon assess- ment of credibility. Fairchild is credited over Graves, based on observation of the witnesses and their demeanor on the stand, and the record as a whole. It is found that this allegation of the complaint is proved. 3. The complaint states : "(d) On or about January 15, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Ralph Graves, encouraged its employees to go non-union by stating to its employees that they would not receive raises if they did not go non-union." The record does not contain testimony or evidence to support this charge. Possibly it could be speculated that the alleged statements were made, and certainly Graves went to considerable trouble to convince employees that their pay and benefits depended upon their union attitude. However, the wording of this charge does not fall within the proof adduced at hearing. 4. The complaint states : "(e) On or about January 15, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Wesley Pipkins, encouraged and instigated circulation of a decertification petition among its employees." Glenn Hollifield testified that Pipkins asked him if he had signed the RD petition and stated that it was not an election-it was just to give employees a chance to vote in order to show whether they wanted an election. Mike Brown testified that Pipkins congratulated him after learning that Brown had signed the petition. Darrel Arnett testified : "After I had signed the petition the First Assistant proceeded to come over and asked to see the petition. They gave it to him and he flipped through the petition commenting most of the signatures were from Claremore and noticing who had signed from our store." Joe Fairchild testified: A. The first time they called me up front to package groceries. I managed to get away without signing it. I didn't sign it that time but the second time when they came back, well they was walking through the back. Ralph and Wesley looked at the petition and they walked up front. That's when I signed it. Q. You say you saw Ralph and Wesley look at it? A. Yeah. John Hollifield testified: I told them I really didn't know because I didn't know what to say. Wesley was there and he said, "We'd really appreciate it if you'd give us a chance." We just kind of stood there a minute and Glenn said, "Well let's give it a chance," so we signed the petition. Q. Did any member of supervision talk to you after you had signed the petition? A. Wesley told me he appreciated us giving it a chance. Betty Blevins testified that, when she visited the Muskogee store on the first occasion to solicit signatures for the RD petition, she and those who accompanied her introduced themselves to Pipkins and said they wanted to talk with some of the employees . She said Pipkins advised her that some of the employees were in the back room. Blevins testified that she and the others from Claremore were in the Muskogee store about 3 or 4 hours. Pipkins testified differently from Blevins . In describing the first visit of Blevins, he stated: A. I was gone to lunch and I came back in, and I was informed that there was some employees from the Claremore store in our store. They were circulating or trying to circulate a petition so therefore I just carried on my normal duties . I did happen to go through the back but other than that, I carried on my normal duties as required by my job. Pipkins testified concerning the second visit that "I didn't know they were in the store until they were fixing to walk out." Pipkins also testified about the RD petition: A. Well at one time after the petition had been entered we talked about the petition. Q. What was said about that? A. He asked me what it was for and I replied that it was to see if the people still felt like they needed a union or wanted a union to represent them. Q. Did he initiate that conversation? A. Yes sir. WAREHOUSE MARKET, INC. 221 Q. Did you ever have any physical contact at all with the employee petitions? A. Yes sir. Q. What was that occasion? A. Betty Blevins handed me the petition . I unfold- ed it, looked at it. There was no signatures. I folded it back and handed it to her. Q. What did she want you to do with it? A. She wanted me to give it to Darrel Arnett. Q. Did you refuse? A. Yes sir. Q. Now you were present when the employees from the Claremore store came the first time, were you not? A. I was out to lunch when they came. Q. Did they introduce themselves to you? A. No sir. Q. Now I believe in your testimony you mentioned something about "they were circulating a petition when they were there on the first occasion." How did you know this? A. How did I know they were circulating a petition? Q. Yes sir? A. I was told. Q. Who told you that they were circulating a petition? A. My manager. Q. Mr. Graves told you they were circulating a petition? A. Yes sir. Q. Did he tell you that on that day? A. No sir, he told me the day before. Q. He told you that there would be some employ- ees coming to the store to circulate a petition, didn't he? A. Yes sir. Pipkins denied that he assisted the Claremore group in preparation or circulation of the RD petition , and he also denied encouraging or pressuring any employee to sign the petition. As seen by the foregoing, Pipkins acknowledged that he was told the day before the Claremore group visited the Muskogee store that they would be there to circulate the RD petition. He also stated that Blevins handed him the petition and that he looked at it. He testified that he talked with Glenn Hollifield about the petition. Thus, it is quite clear that Pipkins knew much about the petition and its circulation. The only question is whether he "encouraged and instigated" it. There is no evidence to show that Pipkins instigated the petition or had any part in its instigation , and it is so found. However, there is evidence that he knew of the petition, assisted in its circulation, and encouraged employees to sign it. Pipkins acknowledged that he was instructed to tell Muskogee employees about the benefits Tulsa employees received after they voted the Union out, and that he did so. He had advance knowledge about the visit of the Claremore group. He looked at the petition and talked with an employee about it. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the witnesses Glenn and John Hollifield, Brown, Arnett, and Fairchild is in accord with the allegation of encouragement; the denial of Pipkins is not realistic. The testimony of those witnesses is credited over that of Pipkins. It is found that the allegation of the complaint is well supported by the record, and proved. 5. The complaint states: (f) On or about January 22, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Wesley Pipkins, promised its employees increased pay rates if they got the Union out. (g) On or about January 22, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Wesley Pipkins, encouraged its employees to get rid of the Union. (h) On or about January 22, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Ralph Graves, encouraged its employees to vote the Union out by having its employees visit the Tulsa stores while being paid to view the work situation that had resulted in Tulsa when they voted the Union out. Respondent's witnesses Graves and Pipkins acknowl- edged that they attended supervisory meetings in Tulsa to discuss the election there, and its effect on other stores; that they were instructed to tell employees at Muskogee about the Tulsa benefits accruing from voting the Union out; that they did talk with the employees as instructed; and that several employees were permitted to go to Tulsa on company time to see for themselves the results of the Tulsa election. The, foregoing evidence is adequate for proof of these three charges in the complaint . However, that evidence is well supported by the General Counsel's witnesses, particularly Darrel Arnett and John Hollifield. It is found that paragraphs 7(f), (g), and (h) are well supported by the record, and are proved. 6. The complaint states : "(i) On or, about January 30, 1974, Respondent by its supervisors and agents Ralph Graves, Wesley Pipkins, and Frank Blevins , encouraged its employees to sign and circulate a decertification petition." This charge was not specifically proved, in that actions of Graves, Pipkins, and Blevins are not tied to the date of January 30. In any event, the charge is cumulative and a separate finding is not required . The record amply supports a finding of 8(a)(l) violations on other and similar charges, as discussed herein. 7. The complaint states : "(j) On or about January 30, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Wesley Pipkins, threatened to make things rough on its employees if the Union stayed in." John Hollifield testified: Q. Have you had any other discussions with any member of supervision about the union? A. Yes, around that day. It was that day or the day before. I really can't recall for sure . Wesley told me that things were going to be rough around the store if we 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD didn't go nonunion. They would just bring people down from Tulsa and we could walk the picket line. There wasn't no way we could get what they got in Tulsa if we stayed in the union. Pipkins denied threatening any employee at any time. However, he acknowledged discussing possible strikes with John Hollifield and telling him replacements could be hired or anybody brought from Tulsa. He said he remarked to Hollifield "as far as I know you'll just have to draw up your picket lines out front and well just continue our job on the inside." In view of Pipkins' acknowledged instructions from management to tell Muskogee employees about the Tulsa benefits, the trip by employees to Tulsa on company time, and the acknowledged statements by Pipkins described above, John Hollifield's testimony is logical and entitled to belief. Hollifield was a credible witness and his version of this event is accepted over Pipkins'. It is found that this allegation of the complaint is fully supported by the record and proved. 8. The complaint states: "(k) On or about February 5, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent John Lay, encouraged the circulation of a decertification petition among its employees." John Lay is store manager at Claremore. Bill Bryant testified concerning this allegation. He testified that he was in the back room at Claremore a few minutes talking with the Claremore group and their attorney about the RD petition. He stated: Q. Was there any member of supervision present while you were talking to the people from Claremore? A. John Lay, the Manager, was in the background. Q. Where was John Lay in relation to you and union membership, activities, and desires and concerning the union membership, activities, and desires of other of its employees." The record does not contain testimony or evidence to support this charge, and it is so found. 10. The complaint states: "(m) On or about March 2, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Ralph Graves, created the impression of surveillance of the union or concerted activities of its employees engaged in for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." The record does not contain testimony or evidence to support this charge, and it is so found. 11. The complaint states: "(n) On or about March 6, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Wesley Pipkins, orally interrogated its employees concerning their union membership, activities and desires and concerning the union membership, activities and desires of other of its employees." John Hollifield testified that he talked with Pipkins on March 6: Q. What did Mr. Pipkins say to you? A. He asked me what good I thought the Union was doing me except taking my $8 a month. I told him I felt like it was job security. He asked me if I didn't think they could fire me right then and I told him I didn't feel like they could. Pipkins corroborated the essence of John Hollifield's testimony, when he stated: Q. Did you ever ask Mr. John Hollifield what good the Union was doing him? these people from Claremore? A. A. He was unloading the frozen food truck that Q. comes to the back door right across from them, and the A. frozen food cooler was eight to ten feet from where Q. they were standing. A. Q. While you were talking to these employees from Q. Claremore, what was Mr. Lay doing? A. A. He was throwing frozen food to the frozen food manager and putting it in the freezer. He further testified that there is "a big sign hanging in the back room that says `Employees Only Beyond This Point' " He stated that the sign was placed there by a prior assistant manager and that "Most of the enforcement was during the period when we had an Assistant Manager, Jim Mullens. He's the one who made the sign." Bryant testified that people other than employees come into the back room "quite often," and that, even when the rule was enforced for the 3 months Jim Mullen was there, people other than employees were allowed in the back room. There is no evidence of an explicit nature showing that Lay encouraged the circulation of a decertification petition. The evidence of an implied nature is very limited and is far from conclusive. This allegation was not proved, and it is so found. 9. The complaint states: "(1) On or about March 2, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Ralph Graves, orally interrogated its employees concerning their Yes sir, I did. You did ask him that? Yes sir. What was his answer? He said, "Well it gives me job security." And what was your reply? Job security is basically to me, if a man's doing his job right he has no worry about job security. Q. Did you tell him that? A. Yes sir. Q. And what did he say? A. He said he felt like he was doing his job and had no worry in that line. He felt he was doing his duties the way they should be done. Q. Did you tell him anything to the effect that Union employees could be fired? A. Yes sir, I did. Q. Would you state what you said in that regard? State as best you can recall your actual words. A. I said, "Yes, a union employee can be fired on the spot for either stealing or drinking on the job." JUDOS STBvm. s: Did you limit it just to those? THE Wimnss: Yes sir. The questions and statements of Pipkins clearly are in violation of the Act, and it is so found. Essex Wire Corp., 188 NLRB 397 (1971). This is an instance of probing that inherently militates against union sympathy. WAREHOUSE MARKET, INC. 223 12. The complaint states: (o) On or about May 9, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Wesley Pipkins, discriminatorily enforced its no-solicitation rule prohibiting its employ- ees from engaging in protected union activities during non-working time in non-working areas. (p) On or about February 4, 1974, Respondent by its supervisor and agent Wesley Pipkins, discriminatorily enforced its no-solicitation rule in derogation of the union contractual right to talk with employees during working time in working areas. Graves testified that Respondent has no no-solicitation rule, but that it does have a talking rule: "That as long as it doesn't interfere with their work, if they're working fine, if they don't stop, if it doesn't stop production. There's no use paying a man for just standing there talking." Pipkins also testified that Respondent does not have a no-solicitation rule, but does have a talking rule: "It's not a drawn up written rule. It's just a well-known established rule. If say a friend comes in and he lingers there in the store and talks 15 to 20 minutes and he's holding up this man's working duties, yes, we go ask him to leave." In discussing the first visit of the Claremore group soliciting RD petition signatures in Muskogee, Pipkins testified: Q. It's an unusual situation to let employees from another store linger in the back of the store for a period of two or three hours, isn't it? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. This was the first time it has ever happened, is it not? A. Yes sir. Pipkins also testified that visitors as well as employees on occasion have been asked to leave the back room. Glenn Hollifield testified: It is seen from the foregoing that the alleged no- solicitation rule must be considered in three aspects: (a) the back room of the Muskogee store, (b) talking while working, and (c) talking with a union representative on company premises. It is clear that neither Respondent nor the Muskogee store has a no-solicitation rule as such, and it is so found. General Counsel established no such rule. Graves and Pipkins testified there is no such rule, and their testimony was not contradicted. However, the possibility remains that there was a violation of the Act because of interference with, or restraint or coercion relative to, protected activity. (a) Pipkins acknowledged that the group from Claremore used the back room for a lengthy period of time-from 2 to 4 hours-and that no one else, not on business, had been permitted in the room for such an extended period of time. Pipkins testified that others, both employees and nonem- ployees, had on occasion been asked to leave the back room. However, other witnesses credibly testified that there had been occasions when the room was occupied by persons not on business, without being asked to leave. In view of the record as a whole, it is clear that Pipkirts did, in fact, permit the petitioners from Claremore to do some- thing that others were not permuted to do; i.e., use the back room for from 2 to 4 hours for a nonbusiness purpose (solicitation of signatures for a decertification petition). It is so found. (b) The record shows, and it is so found, that the Muskogee store has a rule permitting employees to talk while "on the clock," to the extent that the conversation is not unreasonably long and does not interfere with work. Pipkins acknowledged that he enforced the talking rule against a union representative and Darrel Arnett on a date he could not remember. Pipkins also acknowledged that he refused to permit Mark DeLay, a union representative, to talk with John Hollifield on company property in April or May 1974. Pipkins testified: Q. Do you have any rule about access to the back of the store in Muskogee? A. No, well we have a sign on the door that says, "Employees Only". Usually about anybody comes back there. Q. Do you have a rule regarding talking while you are working at the Muskogee store? A. Well I was told that the only time we should talk-well as long as we were doing our work and it didn't interfere with our work, we could talk. Q. Who told you that? A. Just the supervision. John Hollifield testified: Q. Do you know whether or not there is any rule at the Muskogee store regarding talking while on the clock? A. Yes, they've told me-I mean the managers, Ralph and Wesley, that you can. You know, it's all right to. talk for a few minutes but you can't talk for a long time. You can talk if it doesn't interfere with your work. A. The occasion I recall-Mark had been in the store and when he was leaving, John Hollifield was leaving with him. I followed them out to the car and I told Mark, "If you have anything to say to this man, take him off company property to do so." s s s s s A. Yes sir. I walked out on the retail floor and I seen Mark standing there talking to Darrel Arnett, and Darrel had stopped all working procedures and was talking to him. I walked up to him and said, "Please move on and let this man continue with his work." DeLay testified: A. Yes, I entered the store on that day [February 4] and the assistant manager, Wesley Pipkins, followed me through the store. As I was going down one of the stock aisles on the retail floor, I approached one of the employees, Darrel Arnett. As I approached him he said he needed to talk to me so I said, "All right." I stopped and began talking with him. I might add that he 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD continued stocking the shelf as he was doing before I approached. He began to tell me what he wanted and before he could get it out, Wesley Pipkins walked up and informed me that I was not to talk to people while they were on the clock. Darrel then stated, "Go ahead and I'll talk to you later," and I said, "Fine." I left and started up the next aisle. Mr. Pipkins approached me and told me I was not to talk to people while they were on the clock . I pointed out that I had the contractual right to do so as long as I did not interfere with their work. He told me he did not agree with that so I terminated the conversation and walked away. s s s • s A. Yes, I entered the store about three minutes until 5 :00 on that day [May 9] and walked through the store. As I was leaving, employee John Hollifield had punched out and began walking out into the parking lot with me . As I approached my car, I asked him if he'd like to go and have a cup of coffee with me, and he said, "Yes." As he was sitting in the car, Wesley Pipkins walked up and informed me if I wanted to talk with the employees I would have to do it off company property. It is found that Respondent did, as alleged , prohibit its employees from engaging in protected union activities during nonwork time in a nonwork area,4 and during worktime in a work area as permitted by the contract between the parties .5 C. Alleged 8(a)(5) Violations The complaint states: Beginning on or about March 4, 1974, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and is refusing, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit described above in paragraph 8. Since on or about January 15, 1974 , Respondent did refuse, and continues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union in order to undermine and dissipate by the acts described above in paragraph 7, the Union's majority status among the employees in the unit described above in paragraph 8. The complaint alleges , the answer admits, and I find that the following unit is appropriate herein for the purposes of collective bargaining: All employees working at the Respondent's Vinita, Oklahoma store, located at 310 North Wilson Street, Respondent's Claremore, Oklahoma store, located at 515 West Sixth Street, Respondent's Muskogee, Okla- homa store, located at 1906 North Main, but excluding all meat department employees, pharmacists, supervi- sors, guards and watchmen, as defined in the Act. 4 Any such rule is presumptively unlawful . SNC Mfg. Co., 174 NLRB 159 (1%9); Mallory Capacitor Company, 162 NLRB 1404(1%7), Greentree Electronics Corp., 176 NLRB 919 (1%9) S The evidence shows, and it is found , that Mark DeLay (whose testimony is credited), did not interfere with or retard the duties of the The record shows, and I find, that the parties hereto entered into a collective-bargaining contract May 6, 1973, which expired May 5 , 1974; that the Union requested that Respondent bargain with it for a new contract ; and that Respondent refused, and continues to refuse, to bargain with the Union .6 Respondent alleges that its refusal to bargain is based on its good-faith doubt that the Union represents a majority of the employees in the aforesaid unit. In support of its allegation, Respondent states that it filed an RM petition on February 28, 1974, and that employees of Respondent filed an RD (decertification) petition on February 15, 1974, both of which were dismissed by the Regional Director without a hearing on the merits. Respondent moved at the hearing to dismiss or stay these proceedings pending decision of the Board on Respondent's appeal of dismissal of the RM and RD petitions. The motion was denied. The law has been long and well settled that a presump- tion of majority union status continues after expiration of a contract. Barrington Plaza and Tragniew, Inc., 185 NLRB 962 (1970). "The presumption is rebuttable , however, 'by clear and convincing proof.' " Ref-Chem Company, 196 NLRB 376 (1972). Good-faith doubt is not, by itself, sufficient to overcome the presumption. The assertion of doubt must be "support- ed by a showing of objective considerations providing reasonable grounds for a belief that a majority of the employees no longer desire union representation." McSouthern Dyeing & Finishing, Inc., 179 NLRB 573 (1969), and as stated by the court in N.L.R.B. v. Sky Wolf Sales, d/b/a Pacific Industries of San Jose, 470 F.2d 827 (C.A. 9, 1972): "Reasonable doubt as to majority status must only be asserted in good faith, and cannot be raised in the context of employer activity aimed at causing disaffection from the union." Respondent alleges good-faith doubt herein solely on the basis that RM and RD petitions were filed with the Board. There is no contention by Respondent that it based its doubt of the Union's majority status upon any other fact. The filing of an RM petition is of no probative value in unfair labor practice cases. United States Gypsum Company, 157 NLRB 652 ( 1966). If Respondent's defense can prevail, therefore, it must be on the basis of the RD petition . That petition was circulated by employees of the Claremore store, and signatures are dated from January 29 through February 11. The petition was filed with 36 signatures on February 15. As of the last pay period before the filing of the petition, the unit had 56 employees . The Union's request to bargain was dated March 1 , and the refusal was dated March 4. Respondent grounds its legal argument on the principle of Telautograph Corporation, 199 NLRB 892 (1972). However, that case is not controlling herein because, in the language of Telautograph, the charge in this case contains allegations that the Respondent has committed some act employee when he talked with Darrel Arnett. Respondent's actions, therefore, were unlawful. General Machine Company, 174 NLRB 1023 (1969). 6 The statements of this paragraph are not contradicted and are established by documentary evidence. WAREHOUSE MARKET, INC. 225 (other than its mere refusal to bargain) which may be a proper basis for finding a violation of the Act. Respondent also relied on National Cash Register, 7 but it, too, is not controlling herein . Again, in the language of that decision, the loss of majority status in this case is attributable to the employer's own unfair practices. Respondent relies on additional language of National Cash Register which states : "We have previously held that there is not substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the conclusion that the company's unfair labor practices induced the filing of the decertification petition." That quotation, however, is followed by: "The record likewise fails to disclose any substantial evidence from which a permissible inference could be made that the unfair labor practices contributed generally to the possible loss of majority status by the union." As shown in the text hereof, and as is summarized hereinbelow, this record is clear in showing that Respon- dent's unfair labor practices did, in fact, contribute to the loss of majority herein. One of the more obvious portions of the evidence shows that at least four employees at the Muskogee store credibly testified that they initially refused to sign the RD petition, and later agreed to do so only after pressure was exerted by management personnel. That evidence, together with admissions of Graves and Pipkins that they encouraged and assisted employees to go to Tulsa, there to see the benefits of a nonunion store, clearly meet the requirements of National Cash Register, and show "a permissible inference . . . that the unfair labor practices contributed generally to the possible loss of majority status by the union." On December 7, 1973, employees of the Tulsa store voted to decertify the Union as their bargaining represent- ative. Shortly thereafter, in early January, Respondent conducted a series of meetings with its supervisors to discuss union matters. Supervisors were instructed by an out-of-town consultant on how to handle labor matters, and were advised that Tulsa employees could work as temporary replacements if other stores were struck . Graves was advised during the Tulsa meetings in January that a decertification petition was being circulated at Claremore, and Graves told Pipkins the evening before the Claremore group came to Muskogee that the group would bring the petition to Muskbgee the following day. Graves and Pipkins acknowledged that they discussed the Tulsa nonunion benefits with Muskogee employees upon instruction from Tulsa headquarters managers; that they advised Muskogee employees of the benefits acquired by Tulsa employees after the Union was voted out; that they urged Muskogee employees to go to Tulsa to see the situation there ; and that several employees went to Tulsa as urged, the trip being made on company time . The date of the Tulsa trip was not ascertained with certainty at the hearing, but it was clearly established by several witnesses as being before the RD petition was circulated. It is quite clear from the record that Respondent followed a planned course of action after the Tulsa vote against the Union, designed to bring about that same result in an election by the Muskogee-Vinita-Claremore unit. Whether or not Respondent instigated initiation of the RD petition, it certainly so tainted the petition that it did not represent the free will determination of the employees who signed it. Respondent extolled the virtues of the Tulsa nonunion benefits; it paid employees to travel to Tulsa to see those benefits; its managers promised similar benefits to Muskogee-Vinita-Claremore if the unit voted the Union out; it encouraged circulation of the RD petition in a number of ways ; its statements concerning striker replace- ments clearly carried a threat to break the Union at Muskogee ; its treatment of the union business representa- tive showed unmistakable union animus. Under such circumstances it is clear that, when it refused to bargain on March 4 and thereafter (including the unilateral pay raise and increase of benefits effective May 12), Respondent was not relying on objective considerations, providing reason- able grounds for a belief that a majority of the employees no longer desired union representation. Rather, it relied on a contrived and deliberate situation designed to undermine the Union and to see it defeated by election.8 It is found that the allegations of this portion of the complaint have abundant support in the record, and are proved. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The Respondent's activities set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described 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 commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY It having been found and concluded that Respondent Warehouse Market, Inc., has not engaged in certain alleged unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that the allegations of paragraph 7(d), (i), (k), (1), and (m) of the complaint be dismissed in their entirety. Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. A broad order will be recommended because of the numerous 8(a)(1) violations found, and the pervasive nature of those violations. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record, I hereby make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Warehouse Market, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 73 of Retail Clerks r National Cash Register Co., 201 NLRB 1034 (1973). 8 For similar reasoning, whereby inducement of a decertification petition was held not to justify a refusal to bargain. See also Wahoo Packing Co., 161 NLRB 174 (1966); Boren Clay Products Co., 174 NLRB 1200 (1969); Texas Electric Co-op, Inc., 197 NLRB 10 (1972); Federal Pacific Electric Co., 203 NLRB 971 (1973). 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The following unit is an appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees working at the Respondent's Vinita, Oklahoma, store, located at 310 North Wilson Street, Respondent's Claremore, Oklahoma, store, located at 515 West Sixth Street, Respondent's Muskogee, Okla- homa, store, located at 1906 North Main, but excluding all meat department employees, pharmacists, supervi- sors, guards and watchmen, as defined in the Act. 4. The above-named labor organization is the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, and has been such exclusive representative since prior to May 6, 1973. 5. Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in. violation of Section 8(axl) of the Act as described above, by: (a) promising employee pay raises and benefits if the Union was voted out; (b) interrogating prospective and present employees concerning union activities ; (c) encour- aging circulation of, and signatures on, a decertification petition; (d) threatening employees if they remained union; and (e) discriminatorily enforcing a talking rule to discourage protected activity. 6. By refusing on or about March 4, 1974, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above- named organization as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of all employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aX5) of the Act. 7. By the aforesaid independent actions enumerated in paragraph 5(a) through (e), and derivatively by the aforesaid refusal to bargain described in paragraph 6, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact; conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS Respondent, Warehouse Market, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Promising employee pay rases and benefits if the Union is voted out. (b) Interrogating prospective and present employees concerning union activities. (c) Encouraging circulation of, and signatures on, a decertification petition. (d) Threatening employees if they remain union. (e) Discriminatorily enforcing talking rules to discourage union activity. (f) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with Detail Clerks Union, Local No. 73 of Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit: All employees working at the Company's Vinita, Oklahoma store, located at 310 North Wilson Street, the Company's Claremore, Oklahoma store, located at 515 West Sixth Street, and the Company's Muskogee, Oklahoma store, located at 1906 North Main, but excluding all meat department employees, pharmacists, supervisors, guards and watchmen, as defined in the Act, as amended, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. (g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, including the above-named organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive labor representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Post at its principal places of business in Muskogee, Claremore, and Vinita, Oklahoma, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained 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 the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 10 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." WAREHOUSE MARKET, INC. 227 APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT promise employee pay raises and benefits if employees vote against the Union; interro- gate prospective or present employees concerning union activity; encourage circulation of, or signatures on, any union decertification petition; threaten em- ployees if they remain in the union ; or discriminatorily enforce talking rules to discourage union activity. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concern- ing rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 73 of Retail Clerks International Associa- tion, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representatives of the employees in the bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights, to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above- named Union, or the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below, with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understand- ing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All employees working at the Company's Vinita, Oklahoma, store, located at 310 North Wilson Street, the Company's Claremore, Okla- homa store, located at 515 West Sixth Street, and the Company's Muskogee, Oklahoma store, located at 1906 North Main, but excluding all meat department employees, pharmacists, super- visors, guards and watchmen, as defined in the Act. WAREHOUSE MARKET, INC.