Raley's, Inc.

670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Raley's, Inc. and Independent Drug Clerks Association Retail Clerks Local 588, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO and Independent Drug Clerks Association. Cases 20-CA-11061 and 20- CB-3789 December 30, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On July 20, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Russell L. Stevens issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed excep- tions and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a response to the excep- tions. 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, fmdings,l and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent Retail Clerks Interna- tional Association, AFL-CIO, Sacramento, Califor- 1 In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respon- dent Raley's violated Sec. 8(b)(5) and (1) of the Act, we do not rely on his finding that the employees of Store 69 constitute an accretion to the previously established multistore unit of drug center employees, or on the finding, by implication, that these employees would not, by themselves, constitute an appropriate unit. We base our agreement instead on the facts in the record showing that IDCA established itself as the representative of a majority of employees employed at Store 69 by means of membership applications signed by 8 of the 10 employees employed there which were given to IDCA before Raley's, by its actions, recognized that Union. These applications were introduced into evidence and we see no meet in Respondent Raley's contention that they are insufficient indications of IDCA's majority status. Lowery Trucking Co and Ace-Alkire Freight Lines, Inc., 177 NLRB 13,20-21 (1969), enfd, sub nom. Ace-Alkire Freight Lines, Inc., 431 F.2d 280 (C A. 8, 1970). Our conclusion in this respect is therefore in accord with the Board's decision in Houston Division of the Kroger Co., 219 NLRB 388 (1975), notwithstanding the Administrative Law Judge's incorrect characterization of that case as approving a contract provision authorizing an accretion. It was clearly stated in that decision that the principles of accretion did not resolve the issue presented. What was approved was an agreement between the employer and the union waiving in advance the employer's right to demand an election to determine the union's majority status under limited circumstances that provided the affected employees an opportunity to nia, its officers, agents, and representatives, and Respondent Raley's, Inc., Sacramento, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth-in said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RUSSELL L. STEVENS, Administrative Law Judge: This matter was heard at Sacramento, California on May 18 and 19, 1976.1 The charge in Case 20-CA-11061 was filed January 30, 1976, by Independent Drug Clerks Association, hereinafter referred to as IDCA. The charge in Case 20- CB-3789 was filed February 5, 1976, by IDCA. On March 17, 1976, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board) issued an order consolidating said two cases and issued a consolidated complaint alleging that Raley's, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Raley's or as Respondent Raley's, violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act; and that Retail Clerks Local 588, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Local 588, or as Respondent Union, violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act. All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally and to file briefs. Briefs, which have been carefully considered, were filed on behalf of General Counsel, Raley's, and the Union. Upon the entire record2 of the case, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT RALEY'S Raley's is a California corporation engaged in the retail sale of groceries, meat products, and general merchandise in California and Nevada. During the past year Raley's, in the course and conduct of its business operations, received gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and purchased and received merchandise and supplies within California valued in excess of $50,000, which said merchandise and supplies originated from points located outside the State of Califor- nia. I find that Raley's is, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Retail Clerks Union 588, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, and IDCA are, and at all times material herein have been, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. exercise their Sec. 7 rights to determine the question of representation for 1 All dates hereinafter are within 1975, unless otherwise so stated. themselves, and the finding of a violation by the employer of Sec. 8 (a)(5) of 2 General Counsel's motion to correct the transcript of Heanng was filed the Act when that agreement was breached . July 2, 1976, and was not opposed of record . Said motion hereby is granted 227 NLRB No. 109 RALEY'S, INC. 671 M. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Background Raley's operates a chain of approximately 23 retail foodstores in the State of California. Raley's also operates approximately 13 drug centers, each located in the same building with a foodstore, but maintained as a separate entity. Foodstores and drug centers have separate managers and employees. There is no interchange or transfer of employees between foodstores and drug centers. For many years Raley's has bargained, and signed separate contracts, with Respondent Union and IDCA, who represent =Raley's foodstore and drug center employ- ees, respectively. IDCA acts pursuant to Board, certifica- tion. Raley's recently made- certain physical changes at the facilities shared by five foodstores and drug centers,3 and Local 588 thereafter demanded that Raley's apply the existing Local 588 = Raley's contract to all employees, both foodstore and drug center, at the shared facilities affected by the changes. Local 588 also demanded that Raley's recognize it as the exclusive representative of all employees of the five locations in both categories; i.e., foodstore and drug center. Those demands were based on the contention that the physical changes made in the five facilities by Raley's brought all employees within the ambit of the Local 588 - Raley's contract. IDCA opposed the attempted accretion by Local 588, and as a result of the controversy the General Counsel issued a complaint, Case 20-CB-3289, alleging that Respondent Union had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A), (2), and (3) of the Act. The Administrative Law Judge who heard Case 20-CB- 3289 recommended dismissal thereof, in his Decision dated August 27. Exceptions to the Decision were filed with the Board. While the case was pending before the Board, Raley's opened a new store in Auburn, California, on October 6. The Auburn location has a foodstore and a drug center, and is constructed in the same manner as the five stores after their remodeling. On November 15 representa- tives of Raley's and Local 588 signed a cross-check election agreement, and, on November 20, the election supervisor certified that a majority of the employees at the Auburn store had designated and selected Respondent Union as their exclusive collective-bargaining representative in the following unit: All, employees of the employer working at the employer's establishment in Auburn, California, includ- ing but not limitedto employees working in the grocery, produce, bakery, drug and/or family center depart- ment, and other departments, but excluding employees working exclusively in the meat department, the store manager, drug and/or family center department man- ager, management trainees, pharmacists, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. On November 20 Raley's and Local 588 executed an addendum to their existing agreement which covered foodstore employees at the Auburn store, and extended that existing agreement to drug employees by expanding the unit to the one described above. Thereafter and until, at least, the date of the hearing herein, Raley's regularly deducted dues from the wages of all employees of the Auburn store, including drug center employees, and transmitted the same to Local 588. On June 23, 1976, the Board issued its Decision in Case 20-CB-3289.4 Although other issues were involved, the principal issue in said case-was whether Local 588 properly could claim that the physical store changes at the five locations provided a basis for the Union to accrete drug center employees and bring them within its contract covering foodstore employees. In holding that no accretion resulted from the changes, the Board states (at 1641), inter alia: We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the changes instituted by the Company have not impaired the separate community of interest shared by drug center employees, that they remain an appropriate unit for collective bargaining, and that it would have been improper' to extend the Respondent's contract to the aforesaid employees "under the guise of accretion." Accordingly, we find that the Respondent Union's insistence upon arbitration to compel recognition, of it as the representative of Raley's drug center employees was, and is, in the circumstances of this case, insistence upon bargaining for an inappropriate unit in breach of the Respondent's obligation to bargain in good faith. The Respondent's conduct thus was, and is, violative of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. Further, we find that, by insisting upon the applica- tion of its entire contract, including the union-security provision, to Raley's drug center employees, the Re- spondent Union has attempted and is attempting to cause Raley's to discriminate against the aforesaid employees in violation of Section 8(b)(2). We find that the aforesaid conduct has the effect of restraining and coercing those employees in violation of Section 8(bXl)(A) of the Act. Discussion Dismissal of Case 20-CB-3289 was recommended by the Administrative Law Judge on the basis that the case was "not yet ripe' for consideration by the Board, in that the dispute was an arbitrable matter that had not been submitted to an arbitrator pursuant to the provisions of the existing Local 588 - Raley's contract. The Administrative Law Judge went further, however, and determined that, in his view, the physical changes made at the five Raley's locations did not result in accretion of the drug center employees to the Union's foodstore employees' unit. The Board agreed with the Administrative Law Judge's findings and conclusions on this point. Historically, drug center clerks at Raley's have been represented by IDCA, and foodstore clerks have been represented by Local 588. On no occasion prior to the controversy herein has Local 588 represented drug center clerks. 3 Principal reason for the changes was to facilitate cross-shopping between foodstore and drug center areas. 4 224 NLRB 1638 (1976). 672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The most recent agreement between IDCA and Raley's, effective September 4, 1976, through September 4, 1976, recognizes IDCA as the representative of all drug center clerks within California except for Tehama County (not involved herein).5 On December 18, 1974, IDCA's attorney addressed a letter to Raley's reading as follows: December 18,1974 James E. Teel Executive Vice President Raley's Drug Centers, Inc. 1515 20th Street Sacramento, California 95813 Re: Auburn Store Dear Mr. Teel: It is my understanding that Raley's will be opening a new store at Auburn, California, on or about May 1975. It is my further understanding that this store will contain a Raley's Drug Center. Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of the Collective Bargaining Contract with the Indepen- dent Drug Clerks Association, dated September 4, 1973, demand is hereby made that you employ as clerks in the Drug Center, individuals either belonging to the Inde- pendent Drug Clerks Association or those who would be eligible for membership. Sincerely, /s/ Daniel B. Lorenz 9) she talked with the manager of the drug center (Don Byrom) about work areas to be respected by grocery clerks and drug clerks. Byrom agreed that the two areas should be worked separately, by appropriate clerks of Local 588 and IDCA. Sordillo talked about a violation of the work separation rule with Byrom and the manager of the grocery department (Lynn Weaver) on October 31, and- the two managers agreed to see that the problem did not recur. In late October 1975 Sordillo talked with James Teel, who is Raley's vice president and store operations manager, and said she heard that he was negotiating a contract for drug center employees at the Auburn store. Teel denied such action. On November 21 she talked with Teel on the telephone and said she learned he had signed an addendum to the agreement with the Retail Clerks Union (Local 588) covering drug center employees, and Teel said he did. The current contract between Local 588 and Raley's, effective' June 1, 1974, until February 26, 1977, provides, inter alia, that Raley's recognizes Local 588 as the sole collective-bargaining representative of all employees work- ing in Raley's retail food stores within Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus Counties, except meat department employees and supervisors. Auburn is in Placer County. Ralph Williams, executive officer of Local 588, testified that, in his opinion, the aforesaid contract covers all employees, wall- to-wall "when the walls come down" as in the five stores involved in 224 NLRB 163$, and in the case of the new store at Auburn, which was constructed without walls separating the foodstore from the drug center. On October 28, 1975, Local 588's attorney sent the following telegram to the Food Employers Council: DANIEL B. LORENZ ATTORNEY AT LAW DBL/sgm cc Patrick W. Jordan Attorney at Law D. Kay Sordillo Secretary The above letter of December 18 was not answered so far as the record shows, but prior to the date of the Auburn store opening, and soon thereafter, 8 of the total of about 10 employees at the drug center were IDCA or had signed applications for membership in IDCA. Some of the Auburn drug center employees were transferees from other drug centers, where they had become members in the past. Until November 29 pay deductions were made by Raley's for the eight employees' IDCA dues, but the deductions no longer were made after December 6. Dora Sordillo, secretary-treasurer of IDCA, is an em- ployee at Raley's drug center in Broderick, California, and conducts IDCA business at Raley's stores as authorized by the IDCA-Raley's contract. Sordillo credibly testified that she visited the Auburn store about 10 times during the month of October 1975, and that on one occasion (October WESTERN UNION October 28, 1975 2:30 p.m. DAVID COX FOOD EMPLOYERS COUNCIL P.Q. Box 399 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 TELEPHONE #(415) 937 1500 - RE: RALEY'S AND RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 588 THIS WILL CONFIRM THE PREVIOUS ORAL DEMANDS FOR RECOGNITION MADE BY RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 588, FOR ALL EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED AT THE AUUBURN, CALIFORNIA, STORE OF RALEY'S, EXCLUDING STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS. AS I FURTHER ADVISED YOU, THE UNION IS PREPARED IF NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE ITS MAJORITY STATUS IN SUCH UNIT. ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF RALEY'S GRANTING RECOGNITION TO ANY OTHER UNION WILL BE DEEMED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND APPROPRIATE ACTION WILL BE UNDERTAKEN. ROBERT P. COWELL CC: RALPH WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 588 5 The agreement includes a union-security provision requiring member- ship in IDCA as a condition of continued employment. On October 29, 1975, the Food Employers replied to the above telegram: TELETYPE RECEIVED 4:00 p.m. TO: ROBERT P. COWELL RALEY'S, INC. - 673 Council required to become a member of Local 588 but never was THIS IS CONFIRMATION OF YOUR TELEGRAM RECEIVED OCTOBER 27 AND 28, 1975 CONCERNING RALEY'S AUBURN, CALIFORNIA STORE. RALEY'S HAS RECOGNIZED LOCAL 588 RIGHT TO ACCRETE AN APPROPRIATE UNIT AS TRANSFERRED LOCAL 588 MEMBERS TO THE NEW STORE AND HAS APPLIED THE MASTER FOOD AND LIQUOR AGREEMENT TO ALL RETAIL FOOD CLERKS WORKING WITHIN THE EMPLOYERS FOOD DEPARTMENT BUT EXCLUDING THE MEAT DEPARTMENT. THE CONTRACT IS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT PERTAINING TO THESE EMPLOYEES- AND RALEY'S WILL COMPLY WITH ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. THE COMPANY IS PREPARED TO PROCEED IMMEDIATELY TO ARBITRATION IF THE UNION CONTENDS THE CONTRACT SHOULD APPLY TO EMPLOYEES NOT COVERED BY THE MASTER FOOD AND LIQUOR CONTRACT AND CERTAIN OTHER RALEY'S LOCAL 588 LOCATIONS. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE COMPANY INTENDS TO PURSUE ALL LEGAL REMEDIES SHOULD LOCAL 588 ENGAGE IN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY OR BREACH OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. DAVID R. COX FOOD EMPLOYERS COUNCIL, INC. Teel, who is Raley's chief executive officer for labor relations, testified that, in July 1975, Raley's was resisting Local 588s interpretation that their contract covered drug clerks. Teel said he later changed Raley's position because, at a negotiation session with Local 588s representatives about November 20, the Local offered terms that were satisfactory with Raley's. Teel testified that, in changing Raley's position, he took into consideration a telephone call he had received from the Central Labor Council advising that strike sanction had been given by Local 588 clerks. Robert Kilmer testified that he was hired February 24, 1976, as a cashier clerk at the Auburn drug center. He said he was told by Williams Gilmore, personnel director for Raley's, that he would be on probation 30 days and thereafter would be required to become a member of Local 588. He later was required to abide by the terms of the contract between Raley's and Local 588, to the extent of his obligations thereunder. He applied for membership in Local 588 about March 1, 1976. Roberta Thompson testified that she transferred from Raley's Roseville drug center to, the Auburn drug center in August. She said she was required-to become a member of Local 588, but that she never was asked if she wanted to be a member. She applied for membership about December 11,1975. Georgia Treat testified that she was hired as a clerk in the Auburn -drug center on October 6, and that she was asked if she wanted to become a member. Janis Simmons testified that she transferred to the Auburn drug center as a clerk from the South Lake Tahoe drug center in October. She said she was never asked if she wanted to become a member of Local 588, but that she was required to become a member. She applied for membership about December 8, 1975. Thompson, Treat, and Simmons testified that they attended an employees' meeting called by Byrom shortly after a general notice signed by Teel was posted for employees, advising them that the drug center employees were represented by Local 588. The three stated that, among other things, Byrom told them he did not know the details of the representation matter, but that Mr. Raley would not permit pickets in front of the Auburn store. Analysis It is clear from the record thus made that: (a) The principal change at the five remodeled stores involved in 224 NLRB 1638 was removal of the walls between the foodstores and the drug centers; (b) Local 588 asserted its representation claim at the five remodeled stores because of removal of the walls; 6 (c) the Board has held that remodeling of the five stores did not result in accretion of the drug clerks to Local 588; (d) the principal factor in the present controversy that distinguishes it from the factual situation involved in 224 NLRB 1638 is that the Auburn store is a new one, rather than a remodeled one; (e) as shown by the testimony herein, the physical arrangement of the Auburn store and its business operations are the same as those of the five remodeled stores. Intent of the Parties There is no question but what the intent of Raley's and IDCA, at least as of November 1975, was that Auburn drug center employees would accrete to IDCA. That intent is shown by the wording, of the IDCA- Raley's contract, application of the contract to- the Auburn store, Teel's acknowledgement that prior to his change of position occasioned in part by Local 588's threat of strike he opposed Local 588's claims, and the desires of drug clerks. Further, the drug clerks would suffer considerable disad- vantage if they were brought under the Local 588 contract, since that contract provides lower wages than the IDCA contract, and it does not permit discount purchases. The Unit Notice is taken of the fact that the Auburn store is located in the same geographical area as the five remodeled stores. Distances in miles of Auburn and the remodeled stores from Sacramento (where one remodeled store is located) are as follows: Auburn 34 El Dorado Hills 10 Rancho Cordova 12 6 Testimony of Williams establishes this fact. 674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fair Oaks 14 Lake Tahoe - 104 Three of the remodeled, stores - Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, and Fair Oaks - were part of the multistore unit for which IDCA was certified by.the Board. The other two apparently were not opened until after the 1964 representa- tion election. The contract between IDCA and Raley's describes the unit covered thereby, as follows: All selling and non-selling employees employed. in Respondent ' Raley' s` drug and/or family centers located in the State of California excepting Tehama County; excluding registered pharmacists, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for -the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Raley's Recognition of IDCA Sordillo was an impressive witness, whose testimony was straightforward and convincing. She remained firm on cross-examination, and her testimony was not denied or contradicted by any other witness. She is credited. Sordillo testified that she visited-the Auburn drug center about 10 times ,in October, and discussed work separation rules with Byrom -on October 9 and 31. On both occasions Byrom agreed with Sordillo's protestations, and on' October 31 assured Sordillo that the problem would not recur. Recognition 7 finds support in that it conforms with past practice among IDCA, Local 588-' and Raley's as that practice is described and approved in 224 NLRB 1638. Said practice is based on the community of interest of drug center employees. Further, Raley's regularly deducted IDCA dues from wages paid to drug center employees at Auburn until Local 588 was recognized. IDCA's majority is presumed by reason of its current contract with Raley's, assuming an accretion of the Auburn drug center clerks to IDCA. The IDCA-Raley's contract clearly authorizes such an accretion, and such a contractual provision has been approved by the B6ard.8 Raley's withdrawal of recognition of IDCA and recogni- tion of Local 588 at Auburn conclusively are established by the testimony of Teel and Williams, and by General Counsel's Exhibit 2. The enforcement by Local 588 and by Raley's, of the agreement between them 'dated November 20, 1975 (G.C. Exh. 2), conclusively is established by testimony and record evidence. The allegations of the complaint are supported by the evidence.9 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of 7 Respondents Union and Raley's argue that Raley 's did not accede to the request for recognition made by IDCA in the letter of December 18, 1974. That is a case of setting up a strawman. The letter is not a demand for recognition ; clearly it is a request that the contract then existing between IDCA and Raley's be adhered to in employing drug center clerks for the Auburn store. Respondent Raley's described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial,relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing. commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that-Raley's and Respondent Union have engaged in unfair labor practices, as set forth above, I shall order that they cease and desist` therefrom, and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Local 588 demanded that Raley's require membership of its Auburn drug center employees in Local 588, and that dues be deducted from said employees' pay-and remitted to Local 588; having found that dues were deducted and remitted by- Raley's as demanded; and having found; that employees' wages were reduced and benefits were discontinued, I shall recommend that all drug center employees be made whole for dues so deducted, for all dues, fees, and moneys required by Local 588 to be paid to it by drug center employees, and for all wages and benefits lost and discontinued, pursuant to the contractual provisions found herein illegally to have been imposed upon said employees by Raley's and Local 588. Said sums are to be paid with 6-percent interest thereon. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Raley's, a California corporation, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent Retail Clerks Local 588, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and at all times material herein has been, and is, the exclusive representative of certain Raley's foodstore employees for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 3. Independent Drug Clerks Association is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and at all times material herein has been, and is, the exclusive representative of certain Raley's drug center employees for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 4. By recognizing Local 588 as the representative of Raley's drug center employees at Auburn, California, and by entering into and enforcinga collective-bargaining contract with Local 588 covering said employees while those employees were represented by IDCA, Raley's has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(axl), (2), and (3) of the Act. 5. By withdrawing recognition of IDCA as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its drug center employees at Auburn, California, and by repudiating its contract with IDCA covering said employees, Raley's has 6 Houston Division of the Kroger Co., 219 NLRB 388 (1975); Retail Clerks Union, Local 870 Retail Clerks- International Association, AFL-CIO (White Front Stores, Inc.A 192 NLRB 240 (1971). 9 Food Employers Council Inc, 163 NLRB 426 (1967). - - - RALEY'S, INC. - 675 engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor-practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. - 6. By insisting upon recognition as the representative of Raley's drug center employees at Auburn, California, and by entering into, and enforcing a collective-bargaining agreement with Raley'scovering said employees, while said employees were represented- by IDCA, Local 588 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning aning of Section'8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 7. The -aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing fmdings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER to A. The Respondent, Retail Clerks Local 588, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, Auburn, Cali- fornia,' its oflicers,,agents, and representatives, shall: 1. ease and desist from: (a) Insisting upon recognition as the representative of Raley's drug center employees at Auburn, California, or entering into and enforcing a collective-bargaining agree- ment with Raley's covering said employees, while said employees are represented by IDCA. (b) Causing or attempting to cause Raley's, Inc., or any other employer, to, discriminate 'against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the- following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole, jointly and severally with Raley's, Inc., all employees from whom dues, fees, and moneys have been received or demanded or whose wages and benefits have been reduced or discontinued pursuant to the contractual provisions found herein -illegally to have been imposed upon Auburn drug center employees by Raley's, Inc., and Local 588. Said sums are to be paid with 6-percent interest thereon. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all records necessary to analyze and determine the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at business offices and meeting halls copies of the notice marked "Appendix A."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by Respondent Union, shall be posted by Local 588 for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. B. The Respondent, Raley's, Inc., its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Recognizing Local 588 as the representative of Raley's drug center employees at Auburn, California, or assisting or supporting Local 588, or entering into and enforcing any collective-bargaining contract with Local 588 covering said employees while those employees are represented by IDCA. (b) Withdrawing recognition of IDCA as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its drug center employees at - Auburn, California, and repudiating its existing contract with IDCA covering said employees. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. - 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Recognize and bargain with IDCA as the exclusive bargaining representative of Auburn, California, store 69 drug center clerks pursuant to the current contract- between IDCA and Raley's, and effectuate all provisions of said contract at said Auburn store retroactively to November 19, 1975. (b) Make whole, jointly and severally with Local 588, all employees from whose pay dues, fees and other moneys have been deducted, and whose wages and benefits have been reduced or discontinued pursuant to the contractual provisions found herein illegally to have been imposed upon Auburn drug center employees by Raley's and by Local 588. Said sums are to be paid with 6-percent interest thereon. (c) Post at its office copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 12 Copies of said notice, on forms-,provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent Raley's representatives, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places, including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth above, and as soon as they are received from the Regional Director for Region 20, copies of Respondent Union's notice marked "Appendix-A." (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 10 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. 11 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." 12 See fn. 11. 676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A NOTICE POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government To ALL MEMBERS AND OTHER PERSONS USING THE HIRING HALLS OF RETAIL CLERKS LOCAL 588, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunity to present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice. We intend to carry out the order of the board. WE WILL NOT insist upon recognition as the represen- tative of Raley's drug center employees at Auburn, California, or enter into and enforce any collective- bargaining agreement with Raley's covering said em- ployees, while said employees are represented by IDCA (Independent Drug Clerks Association). WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Raley' s, Inc., or any other employer to discriminate against employ- ees to encourage membership in our, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make whole, jointly and severally with Raley's, Inc., all employees from whom dues, fees, and moneys have been received or demanded and whose wages and benefits have been reduced or discontinued pursuant to contractual provisions found illegally to have been imposed on Auburn, California, drug center employees by Raley's, Inc., and this Union. RETAIL CLERKS LOCAL 588 , RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO APPENDIX B NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which all sides had the opportunity to present evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, and has ordered us to post this notice. We intend to carry out the order of the Board. WE WILL NOT recognize Local 588 as the representa- tive of Raley's drug center employees at Auburn, California, or assist or support Local 588, or enter into and enforce any collective-bargaining contract with Local 588 covering said employees while those employ- ees are represented by Independent Drug Clerks Asso- ciation. WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition of Independent Drug Clerks Association as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of our drug center employees at Auburn, California, or repudiate our contract with Independent Drug Clerks Association covering said employees. _ WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL recognize and bargain with Independent Drug Clerks Association as the exclusive bargaining representative of Auburn,- California, store 69 drug center clerks pursuant to the current contract between Independent Drug Clerks Association and Raley's, and effectuate all provisions of said contract at said Auburn store retroactively to November 19, 1975. WE WILL make whole, jointly and severally with Local 588, all employees from whose wages we have deducted dues, fees, and other moneys and whose wages and benefits have been reduced or discontinued, pursuant to contractual provisions found illegally to have been imposed upon our Auburn, California, drug center employees by us and by Local 588. RALEY'S, INC.