Super Valu Stores, Inc.

22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Super Vain Stores, Inc. and General Drivers & Helpers Union, Local 554, affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Cases 17-CA-12329 and 17-CA-12342 31 March 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS DENNIS AND BABSON On 11 April 1985 Administrative Law Judge Donald R. Holley issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in the proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge' s rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Super Valu Stores, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. Anne G. Purcell, Esq., for the General Counsel. A. Stevenson Bogue, Esq. (McGrath, North, O'Malley & Kratz, P.C.), for the Respondent. Maynard H. Weinberg, Esq. (Weinberg & Weinberg, P.C.), for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DONALD R. HOLLEY, Administrative Law Judge. On original charges filed by the Union in Cases 17-CA- 12329 and 17-CA-12342 on September 17 and Septem- ber 28, 1984,' respectively, the Regional Director for Region 17 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a complaint on November 26 which al- leged, in substance, that Super Valu Stores, Inc. (the Re- spondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) in September 1984 by re- fusing to furnish the Union with certain specified pur- chase and/or sales agreements and an employee hand- book which are allegedly relevant to the Union's func- tion as the bargaining representative of certain of Re- spondent's employees. By timely answer, Respondent denies it has engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. The case was heard in Omaha, Nebraska, on Decem- ber 11, 1984. All parties were present and were permit- ' All dates herein are 1984 unless otherwise indicated led full opportunity to participate. On the entire record, including the briefs filed by counsel , and from my obser- vation of the demeanor of the witnesses, when they gave testimony, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Super Valu Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation, admits that from November 1982 until September 21, 1984, it was engaged in the nonretail sale and distribution of groceries at a distribution center located in Omaha, Nebraska. Additionally, it admits that, during that period, its annual sales and purchases to and from cus- tomers and suppliers located outside the State of Nebras- ka exceeded $50,000 . Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material, it has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION It is admitted, and I find, that the Union is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts On November 28, 1982, Respondent obtained a whole- sale grocery distribution center located at 4206 South 108th Street, Omaha, Nebraska, which had previously been operated by a food chain named Hinky Dinky. Under the terms of the purchase agreement , Respondent was entitled to require Cullum Companies, Hinky Dinky's parent corporation, to repurchase the facility if Hinky Dinky's volume of purchases from the distribution center were not maintained at a given level. For some time prior to the above-described transac- tion, certain Hinky Dinky employees at the distribution center had been represented by Local 554. When it ob- tained the facility, Respondent honored and abided by the then subsisting collective-bargaining agreement be- tween Hinky Dinky and the Union. In February 1983, the agreement was renegotiated . The new agreement, which became effective on February 6, 1983, and con- tains an expiration date of February 8, 1986, was placed in the record as Joint Exhibit 1. In mid-August 1984, Thomas McFarland, secretary- treasurer of Local 554, telephoned John Prior, Respond- ent's vice president, labor relations, to inquire whether a rumor that Respondent was going resell the Omaha dis- tribution center to Hinky Dinky was true. Prior, who was unaware of any such intention, told McFarland he would check the matter out and call him back. Prior sub- sequently called McFarland and told him the rumor was true. McFarland then asked if Prior knew to whom Hinky Dinky intended to sell the facility, and Prior told him he did not know but would let him know if he found out. McFarland then indicated he would like to have a copy of the 1982 contract by which Respondent obtained the distribution center and would like a copy of the agreement whereby Respondent conveyed the prop- 279 NLRB No. 5 SUPER VALU STORES erty back to Hinky Dinky. Prior told him he did not think that would present a problem but he would have to check with his legal department. Prior testified that, on several occasions during late August and early September , McFarland telephoned to ask if he knew whether certain potential purchasers of the distribution center were going to buy it. Prior in- formed him he had talked to some people in Hinky Dinky, but they were being close-mouthed and would not tell him anything. During the same period, Jerry Younger, the Local's president, indicated he contacted the Union's representa- tive, who was with the Central Conference of Teamsters, to ascertain whether he knew to whom Hinky Dinky was going to sell the distribution center. Younger indi- cated the representative contacted someone with the Cullum Companies and thereafter informed him Cullum did not know at that time to whom they would be sell- ing the distribution center. On August 15, Younger met with Jim Showalter, Re- spondent's vice president of personnel, and the Omaha division president, Ken Kegerreis, and the latter formally informed him that Respondent was going to exercise its option to require Hinky Dinky to repurchase the Omaha distribution center because Hinky Dinky had failed to fulfill its agreement to purchase a given volume of gro- ceries through the distribution center and it had failed to construct a new facility as required by the 1982 purchase agreement. By letter dated August 28, Prior formally notified McFarland and Local 554 that Respondent intended to sell the Omaha distribution center to the Cullum Compa- nies, Hinky Dinky's parent company. In the letter Prior indicated the bargaining unit employees' last day of work would be September 25, and he offered to meet with the Union at their mutual convenience to discuss the impact of Respondent's decision to sell on the bargaining unit employees. Thereafter, in early September, McFarland telephoned Prior to complain that he had not received copies of the 1982 and 1984 purchase and/or sales agreements he had requested. Prior informed him his legal department had advised him Respondent would not give the documents to the Union because they were private documents be- tween two parties. Prior indicated Respondent preferred the Union obtain the documents from Cullum. McFar- land replied he still needed the documents and Prior sug- gested he request them in writing, indicating he would deny the request in writing. Prior indicated he felt they should meet to talk about the effects of the closing, and carry through with the documents matter as a separate issue. By letter dated September 10, authored by Prior, Re- spondent formally refused to furnish the Union with copies of the purchase agreements between it and the Cullum Companies , indicating that such agreements "are agreements between two private parties." In the letter Prior again indicated Respondent's willingness to discuss the impact of Respondent's termination decision. During the week of September 10, Prior telephoned McFarland to advise him Respondent would close the Omaha warehouse on September 21, rather than Septem- 23 ber 25. A meeting was scheduled for September 18 in Omaha. On September 18, the parties met at the Teamsters building in Omaha. Representing the Union were: McFarland, Maynard Weinberg, its attorney; Walt Thompson, chief steward; Jerry Younger, president of Local 554; and Elmer Davis, business agent. Represent- ing Respondent were : Prior; Jim Showalter, vice presi- dent personnel ; and Ed Gesic, distribution center manag- er. McFarland and Weinberg were the principal spokes- men for the Union, and Prior was the spokesman for Re- spondent. Younger, Thompson, Weinberg, and Prior de- scribed what occurred during the meeting when they ap- peared as witnesses. Although their recollections differed somewhat, a composite of their testimony reveals the fol- lowing occurred. At the outset of the meeting, McFarland again request- ed that Respondent furnish the Union with copies of the 1982 and 1984 purchase and/or sale agreements , indicat- ing the Union needed the documents to enable it to prop- erly represent the bargaining unit employees . Prior indi- cated Respondent would not furnish the documents. Although Prior testified McFarland informed the Re- spondent negotiators that they could not proceed with the effects bargaining unless the purchase and/or sales agreements were produced, the record reveals that, in fact, the parties proceeded with their negotiations. During the course of the meeting , they discussed ac- crued employee vacations, and some information in the form of a computer printout was given to the Union. Apparently, there was some discussion of the fact that the trustees of the pension plan were to furnish the par- ties with estimates of the pension rights of employees, and the parties discussed how final inventory would be taken and how the employees would be paid. At some point during the meeting, Attorney Weinberg sought to indicate what information the Union was seek- ing and the reasons for its requests. He first referred to section 21.3 of the parties' contract which provides: The Employer agrees not to enter into any agree- ment or contract with his employees, individually or collectively, which in any way conflicts with the terms and provisions of the Agreement. The Em- ployer is permitted to make and enforce any reason- able Company rules which do not conflict with the provisions of this Agreement. The Local Unions shall be furnished a copy of such rules and unless protested by the Local Union in writing within ten (10) working days after receipt, such rules shall become effective. Any Union protest under this Section which cannot be resolved between the par- ties shall be processed through the regular griev- ance procedure of this Agreement, including the ar- bitration. After quoting the section, he informed Prior the Union would like to have a copy of the rules promulgated by Respondent. Prior, who indicated during his testimony that Respondent had promulgated no rules pursuant to the provision, informed Weinberg he would have to check with his legal counsel regarding the request. Wein- 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD berg then quoted section 13.1 of the contract, which pro- vides: All Employer rights, functions, responsibilities and authority not specifically surrendered or modi- fied by the express terms of this Agreement are re- tained by the Company and remain within the rights of management. After quoting the provision, Weinberg claims he indicat- ed the Union wanted Respondent 's employee manual to permit the Union to ascertain how Respondent was treat- ing nonbargaining unit employees on termination. Prior, who testified Respondent had no employee manual appli- cable to union employees but had a companywide policy manual covering exempt and nonexempt nonunion em- ployees which defined their benefits, again indicated he would have to check with legal counsel before he would attempt to comply with the Union's request.2 Weinberg next paraphrased section 32.5 of the contract which pro- vides: Action for delinquent contributions may be insti- tuted by the Union, the Local Union, the Area Con- ference or the Trustees. Employers who are delin- quent must also pay all attorney's fees and cost of collection. Weinberg indicated the Union was requesting the 1982 and 1984 purchase agreements between Respondent and Hinky Dinky and/or the Cullum Companies for several reasons. Among those reasons were: (1) a need by the Union to determine what rights the bargaining unit em- ployees would have with respect to seniority, layoff, and recall;3 and (2) a need to ascertain which entity was liable for an alleged $2.3 million liability under the ERISA legislation due to the fact that Hinky Dinky and/or Respondent had withdrawn from the Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas Pension Fund thereby creating an unfunded pension fund delinquency which some entity would have to satisfy. Prior testified he informed Weinberg the question of Respondent's li- ability under ERISA was being handled by the corporate legal department and a position had already been estab- lished with the Central Conference of Teamsters. Finally, at some point, Weinberg made reference to a Nebraska statute which required that employees be noti- 2 Considerable confusion exists concerning the request for the employ- ee manual Younger and Thompson indicated they thought they saw a gold document with the words "Employee Manual" printed in blue in Prior's briefcase during the meeting Younger indicated the described document was the document they were requesting Prior testified the only gold document with blue lettering he ever possessed was a Team- sters manual Noting that Weinberg testified he later inquired at a union meeting whether any of the bargaining unit members had been given an employee manual by Respondent, I suspect he was asking for any manual applicable to bargaining unit employees during the meeting I am satisfied no such document exists In any event , the record reveals Weinberg sub- sequently obtained an employee manual applicable to nonunit employees employed at the Omaha facility which describes the benefits they re- ceived as employees 8 Younger indicated during his testimony that when Hinky Dinky con- veyed to Respondent, bargaining unit employees enjoyed unlimited recall rights, but they were restricted to a year or two under the Union's con- tract with Respondent , he further indicated the Union considered the em- ployees to be in layoff status from both Hinky Dinky and Respondent feed within 10 days after termination of their rights to convert group insurance coverage to a private plan. He did not expressly indicate that he sought any specific document to permit the Union to ascertain whether Re- spondent intended to comply with the insurance notifica- tion requirement. At the conclusion of his testimony, Union Counsel Weinberg placed in evidence as Charging Party's Exhibit 3 a warranty deed with attachments which reveals that on September 25, 1984, Super Valu Stores, Inc. con- veyed the Omaha distribution center to American Com- munity Stores Corporation. Prior testified Hinky Dinky, Cullum Companies, and the grantee named in the deed are all one and the same. It is undisputed that neither Respondent nor Hinky Dinky operated the Omaha distribution center from Sep- tember 21, 1984, through the date of the hearing held in this proceeding. The record suggest that the property has been conveyed by American Community Stores Cor- poration to Nash-Finch, but no documentary evidence was offered to establish that such is a fact. B. Analysis and Conclusions The general legal principles applicable in cases such as the case sub judice were recently set forth in Bohemia, Inc., 272 NLRB 1128, 1129 (1984), in which the Board stated: It is well established that an employer must provide a union with requested information "if there is a probability that such data is relevant and will be of use to the union in fulfilling its statutory duties and responsibilities as the employees' exclusive bargain- ing representative." Associated General Contractors of California, 242 NLRB 891, 893 (1979), enfd. 633 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980); NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). The Board uses a liberal, discovery-type standard to determine whether infor- mation is relevant, or potentially relevant, to require its production. NLRB Y. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956). Information about terms and conditions of employment of employees actually represented by a union is presumptively relevant and necessary and is required to be produced. Ohio Power Co., 216 NLRB 987 (1975), enfd. 531 F.2d 1381 (6th Cir. 1976). Information necessary for processing griev- ances under a collective-bargaining agreement, in- cluding that necessary to decide whether to proceed with a grievance or arbitration, must be provided as it falls within the ambit of the parties' duty to bar- gain. NLRB v. Acme Industrial, supra; Bickerstaff Clay Products, 266 NLRB 983 (1983). However, when a union's request for information concerns data about employees or operations other than those represented by the union, or data on fi- nancial, sales, and other information, there is no presumption that the information is necessary and relevant to the union's representation of employees. Rather, the union is under the burden to establish the relevance of such information. Ohio Power, supra. SUPER VALU STORES The complaint in the instant case alleges that Respond- ent violated the Act by refusing to furnish the Union with a copy of the purchase agreement by Super Valu wherein it acquired the distribution center in 1982, a copy of the purchase agreement between Super Valu and Cullum Companies, effective September 25, 1984, and the personnel manual. As the information requested does not relate directly to the terms and conditions of employ- ment of the employees represented by the Union, it is not presumptively relevant to the Union's representation function. C. The Employee Manual Noting that Attorney Weinberg requested that Re- spondent furnish the Union with its employee manual while discussing section 13 . 1 (rules enabling clause) and section 21.3 (management-rights clause) of the collective- bargaining agreement and, apparently , immediately after witnesses Younger and Thompson thought they saw a gold-colored document with blue lettering in Prior's briefcase, it appears that Weinberg was actually request- ing a copy of any employee manual applicable in whole or in part to bargaining unit employees. My suspicion that such was the case is enforced by Weinberg's admis- sion that he subsequently sought to ascertain, at a union meeting, whether union members had ever received an employee manual, and Younger's inability, during later discussions with Prior, to describe the document Wein- berg was seeking. I credit Prior's assertion that Respond- ent has no employee manual which is applicable to its union employees. Although it would appear that the allegation that Re- spondent unlawfully refused to give the Union an em- ployee manual should be dismissed because the manual requested does not exist, the General Counsel argues in her brief that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by re- fusing to give the Union copies of its employee manuals which define Respondent's relationship with its nonunion employees. I find the contention to be without merit for several reasons. First, I am unwilling, after carefully reviewing the record in this case, to find that the Union requested that Respondent supply it with any employee manual applica- ble to only its nonunion employees. Second, assuming, arguendo, the Union's request made at the September 18 meeting was broad enough to be construed as a request for information relating to nonunit employees, I find that the Union's announced reason for requesting the infor- mation-a desire to ascertain how Respondent was treat- ing nonunion employees when closing the Omaha distri- bution center-is insufficient to establish that such em- ployee manual was relevant to the Union's performance of its effects bargaining function. Finally, I note that the record reveals the Union had obtained the employee manual which describes the benefits received by Re- spondent's nonunion employees prior to the hearing in this proceeding. In sum, for the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the allegation that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing to furnish the Union with an employee manual be dismissed. 25 D. The 1982 and 1984 Agreements The record reveals that the Union requested the 1982 and 1984 purchase and/or sales agreements between Re- spondent and the Cullum Companies for three reasons: (1) to permit the Union to more effectively represent unit employees in effects bargaining; (2) to permit the Union to ascertain the seniority, layoff, and recall rights of unit employees subsequent to the closing of the distribution center; and (3) to permit the Union to ascertain which corporation, if any, was liable for an alleged $2.3 million owing to Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas Pension Fund by virtue of the Employment Retirement Investment Security Act (ERISA). In agreement with Respondent, I find the first stated reason for requesting the agreements between Respond- ent and a third party is, standing alone, inadequate. The Union's theory of relevance must be reasonably specific; general avowals of reliance such as "to bargain intelli- gently" and similar boilerplate are insufficient. Soule Glass & Glazing Co. v. NLRB, 652 F.2d 1055, 1099 (1st Cir. 1981). With respect to the Union's claim that it needed the agreements to determine the seniority, layoff, and recall rights of bargaining unit employees, I note that Adminis- trative Law Judge Shapiro, with subsequent Board ap- proval, found in Westwood Import Co., 251 NLRB 1213, 1226-1227 ( 1980), that, in a successor situation, a union is entitled to sales information which would shed light on the question of whether the new employer was a differ- ent employer than its predecessor and, if so, whether it is a successor employer for the purposes of collective bar- gaining. Although the General Counsel cites and relies on Westwood Import Co., supra, I find the instant situa- tion is factually distinguishable. Here, all the bargaining unit employees were terminated on September 21, 1984, and the record clearly reveals the Union was aware of the fact that Hinky Dinky had no intention of reopening the facility and rehiring the former Respondent employ- ees. Instead, Hinky Dinky apparently indicated it intend- ed to sell the facility. In the circumstances, it appears the employees represented by the Union had no seniority, layoff, or recall rights. That being the case, I find the General Counsel has failed to show that the requested agreements were relevant to the seniority, layoff, and recall rights of the bargaining unit employees. As noted, the Union's last stated reason for requesting information pertaining to the 1982 and 1984 transaction involving the Omaha distribution center is its claim that the information is relevant to a determination of which entity, if any, is liable for unfunded liability due to the pension fund. Respondent strenuously argues that the Local Union is not entitled to the information requested because: (1) Local 554's duty with respect to the pension fund is solely to ensure that signatory employers fulfill their obligation to make the weekly contributions of $51 per full-time employees to the fund; (2) the trustees of the fund, rather than Local 554, would be the party enti- tled to institute an action to recover unfunded liability amounts due under ERISA; and (3) the Union has failed to prove that Respondent's failure to satisfy any unfund- 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ed liability to the fund would affect the pension rights of bargaining unit employees. Patently, the pension rights of the bargaining unit em- ployees employed by Respondent through September 21, 1984, are matters which relate directly to the terms and conditions of employment of the employees . Moreover, the record in this case reveals that Respondent's bargain- ing unit employees were seeking , after receiving notifica- tion that the Omaha distribution center was to be closed, to ascertain what they were entitled to receive as a result of the prior participation by Hinky Dinky and Respond- ent in the Central States Pension Fund . Although Re- spondent contends the General Counsel and the Union have failed to show that a single employer's failure to satisfy its monetary obligations to the multiemployer fund would have any effect on the benefits that employ- er's employees would receive from the fund, common sense causes one to conclude that the failure of individ- ual participating employer members to make a required contribution would affect all beneficiaries of the fund. In the instant situation, Respondent repeatedly in- formed the Union that it was going to reconvey the dis- tribution center to Hinky Dinky and/or the Cullum Companies. In fact, the record reveals that information was not truthful as the property was conveyed to Ameri- can Community Stores Corporation. The Union claims it now needs to inspect the 1982 and 1984 documents which would reveal the details of the transactions in- volving the alleged transfers of the Omaha distribution Center to permit it to determine what entity is liable for the payment of certain unfunded liability to the fund. In the circumstances, I find that General Counsel has dem- onstrated that the information requested is relevant to the Union's obligation to attempt to ensure that the em- ployers of the bargaining unit employees make required contributions to the pension fund. In my view, Respond- ent has failed to demonstrate that it had a legitimate busi- ness reason for refusing to furnish the information re- quested. By engaging in such action, I find it has violat- ed Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act as alleged. Here, as in Westwood Import Co., supra, the Respond- ent is not obligated to furnish the Union with all infor- mation concerning the 1982 and 1984 transactions in- volving the Omaha distribution center. It is obligated, however, to furnish that information which sheds light on the obligation of Respondent, Hinky Dinky, the Cullum Companies, or American Community Stores Corporation's obligation to satisfy their ERISA's obliga- tions to the pension fund. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All checkers, receiving clerks, forklift operators, freezer employees, cigarette room employees, warehouse employees, light warehouse employees, sanitation em- ployees, city drivers, and country drivers employed by Respondent at its Omaha, Nebraska facility but EX- CLUDING office clerical employees, guards and super- visors 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. 4. At all times material, the Union has been the exclu- sive bargaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit. 5. By failing since September 10, 1984, to furnish the Union with information which is relevant to its functions as the bargaining representative of its employees, Re- spondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed4 ORDER The Respondent, Super Valu Stores, Inc., Omaha, Ne- braska, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to furnish the Union with information re- garding the 1982 and 1984 purchase and/or sale of the Omaha distribution center which sheds light on the obli- gation of Respondent, Hinky Dinky, the Cullum Compa- nies, or American Community Stores Corporation to sat- isfy their ERISA obligations to the Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas Pension Fund. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Mail signed and dated copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix" to all employees on its payroll as of September 10, 1984, to their last known address.5 Copies of such notices, to be furnished to Respondent by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed and dated by Respondent's representative, shall be mailed by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof. (b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dis- missed insofar as it alleges violations not specifically found herein. * If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses 5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al 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 " SUPER VALU STORES 27 APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with General Drivers & Helpers Union , Local 554, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America by refusing to supply relevant infor- mation to the Union on request. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL furnish the above-named Union with infor- mation concerning our 1982 purchase of the Omaha dis- tribution center and our 1984 sale of the facility, which sheds light on the obligation , if any, of the parties to such purchase and/or sale to pay an alleged unfunded li- ability to the Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas Pension Fund. SUPER VALU STORES, INC.