May Department Stores Co.

MAY DEPARTMENT STORES CO. May Department Stores Company, Venture Stores Division and United Retail Workers Union Local No. 881, chartered by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC. Cases 13-CA-21660 and 13- CA-21696 June 30, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS BABSON AND CRACRAFT On February 17, 1984, the National Labor Rela- tions Board issued its Decision and Order ' in these proceedings, finding that the November 1, 1981 af- filiation between the United Retail Workers Union (URW) and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (UFCW) was improper because unit employees who were not members of URW were not given an opportunity to vote in the affiliation referen- dum. Accordingly, the Board found that the Re- spondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing, among other things, to recog- nize the affiliated entity, i.e., the Charging Party (Local 881). The Board's Order dismissing the complaint was enforced sub nom. by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.2 Thereafter, on April 28, 1986, in light of its decision in NLRB v. Financial Institution Employees, 475 U.S. 192 (1986), the United States Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case to that court for further consideration . On reconsider- ation, the court of appeals on July 25, 1986, issued its decision, 3 holding that the Board cannot require the URW "to allow nonunion employees to vote on the merger before ordering [the Respondent] to bargain with the post-merger union."4 Without ex- pressing views whether the affiliation referendum was conducted with sufficient due process or whether there is sufficient continuity between the unions, or on any other remaining issues, the court of appeals remanded the case to the Board for fur- ther proceedings consistent with its opinion. Following acceptance of the remand from the court of appeals, the Board notified the parties that they could file position statements with the Board. On November 10, 1986, the Respondent and coun- sel for the General Counsel each filed a timely statement of position, and the Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a statement of material facts. UFCW filed a position statement of ' 268 NLRB 979. 2 Retail Workers Local 881 v. NLRB, 774 F.2d 752 (7th Cir. 1985) s 797 F 2d 421 (7th Cir. 1986). Id. at 423 The court noted that the relevant considerations in both "merger" and "affiliation" cases are the same 661 November 14. On November 20 and 28, respective- ly, counsel for the General Counsel filed his re- sponse in opposition to the motion and the Re- spondent filed its reply to the response.5 Thereaf- ter, following the Board's issuance of its Decision and Order in Western Commercial Transport, 288 NLRB 214 (1988), the UFCW requested permis- sion to file a second position statement. The Board granted all parties in this proceeding an opportuni- ty to file statements of position in light of the recent decision in that case, and all parties have ex- ercised the opportunity to do so. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the record6 in light of the position statements and briefs, and finds that the 1981 affiliation of URW with the UFCW was proper and that the Respondent has violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, as alleged, by taking the following actions : refusing to bargain with Local 881; engaging in direct dealing with employ- ees; unilaterally terminating the grievance proce- dures set forth in the applicable collective-bargain- ing agreements and refusing to process grievances; refusing to grant Local 881 representatives access to stores; refusing to provide information about newly hired employees as required by the collec- tive-bargaining agreements; and unilaterally chang- ing the dues-checkoff provisions set forth in the collective-bargaining agreements and refusing to transmit to Local 881 dues and initiation fees de- ducted from employees' paychecks. The Affiliation Referendum The facts regarding the conduct of the affiliation referendum are set forth briefly in the Board's deci- sion at 268 NLRB 979. The Respondent has recog- nized the URW as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of employees in its 10 Chicago area stores and its store in Decatur, Illinois, since 1978.7 The most recent collective-bargaining agreement be- tween the Respondent and URW covering the Chi- cago stores was effective from July 21, 1980, 5 In view of the procedural history of this case and the decision reached here, the Respondent's motion is denied 6 Per stipulation by the Respondent, Local 881, and the General Coun- sel, the record in this case consists of the charges, the consolidated com- plaint, the answer, and the stipulation of facts, with attachments, entered into by the parties and approved by the Board on April 23, 1982 (See 268 NLRB 979) In the stipulation, the parties waived a hearing before an administrative law judge , agreed that oral testimony was neither neces- sary nor desired, and reserved the right to object to the materiality, rel- evance, or competence of any of the stipulated facts 7 In 1978, the Respondent recognized URW following the purchase of certain Turnstyle Stores from Jewel Companies, Inc In 1962 Jewel had voluntarily recognized URW as the representative of its Chicago area Turnstyle employees and later recognized URW as the representative of its Decatur location employees pursuant to Board certification in 1972 289 NLRB No. 88 662 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD through July 24, 1983. The most recent collective- bargaining agreement between the Respondent and URW covering the Decatur store was effective from January 1, 1981, through December 31, 1983. As discussed in more detail below, the Respondent failed to adhere to certain terms of the agreements following November 1, 1981. In January 19818 and for approximately 6 months thereafter, URW National Executive Di- rector Fred Burki and URW National Vice President/Treasurer Frank Koukl investigated the possibility of URW's affiliating with UFCW and met with UFCW officials. On June 11, Burki and Koukl presented their affiliation plan to, and re- ceived the unanimous approval of, the four URW local presidents. On June 22, UFCW International President William Wynn and URW's executive council, staff supervisors, and board of governors met and, with the exception of two absent persons who later gave their approval, unanimously en- dorsed and signed a "resolution of merger," adopt- ing the proposed merger agreement between URW and UFCW. Thereafter, on June 23, Burki notified the Respondent that URW intended to seek affili- ation and sent all URW members a letter informing them of the governing bodies' decision and recom- mendation on affiliation and explaining the reasons for it. On June 24 and 25, Burki held a press con- ference attended by officials of both unions to an- nounce a mail ballot referendum on the affiliation question, and notified all stewards about a special affiliation conference scheduled for July 27. On July 1, Koukl sent letters about the special affili- ation conference and special membership meetings to be held the same week to all employers with whom URW had collective-bargaining agreements and, under separate cover, Burki informed the em- ployers about the proposed affiliation. On July 10, all URW members were mailed a "Notice of Meet- ing and Mail Ballot Referendum" and a copy of the merger agreement and appendices, 9 and 4 days later, reminders of the special meetings and the ref- erendum were posted at all employers' facilities. Stewards and local union officers attended the spe- cial affiliation conference on July 27, and affiliation meetings were conducted, as announced, twice a day on July 28 through 31. The latter meetings were open to all URW members and the members were given an opportunity to question URW and UFCW officials about the affiliation. On July 31, Walenza Direct Mail mailed affili- ation referendum ballots with instructions and return envelopes enclosed to the 20,548 URW s All dates refer to 1981 unless otherwise indicated s Appendices included the UFCW International constitution members deemed eligible to vote.10 The preprinted return envelopes were addressed to LaSalle Bank, which URW had appointed to guard and tally the ballots. Although the return envelopes were im- printed with a store identification number, the bal- lots themselves bore no identification marks. As of the close of business on August 20, the preestablished cutoff date for the election, LaSalle Bank had received 9235 ballots." The following day, the bank opened and commingled and tabulat- ed the ballots. The tally was 6823 for affiliation and 2344 against it, with 68 ballots declared invalid. Of the 1214 ballots mailed to members in the Respond- ent's employ, 389 were returned to the bank and tabulated. The URW and the General Counsel ac- knowledge that because of the commingling of the ballots, they have no way of determining (by em- ployer, unit, or store) how the employees voted. On August 21, URW telephoned the Respondent and other employers under contract with it and in- formed them of the result of the referendum. By letter dated August 31, the Respondent's vice presi- dent, Coleman Peterson, acknowledged receiving a telephone call concerning the results of the referen- dum, but requested that Burki advise him "official- ly of the current and future status" of URW, spe- cifically, whether the "merger" was complete and, if not, what further steps were necessary, when any additional steps would be taken, the effective date(s) of the merger, and the tally of ballots among the Respondent's employees. Peterson's letter also stated that the Respondent needed to know that it was "dealing with the proper organi- zation and its authorized representatives" in order to continue "routine" matters such as dues check- off, handling of new checkoff authorizations, and grievances. Additionally, Peterson stated that he had instructed management to discontinue these functions as of September 5 but, pending official notification, would "reinstruct" the managers if the merger was not going to take place or would not be effective until a later date. In a letter dated September 1, Burki responded that the effective date of the affiliation was No- vember 1, requested that Peterson "reinstruct" the managers to "continue business as usual," and as- 10 URW contracted out the printing of ballots and labels as well as the mailing Of the 22,412 employees represented by URW, the following in- dividuals were eligible to vote a all active URW members on the payroll of an employer under contract with URW as of the last payroll date pnor to July 31, 1981, and b. Non-members employed by an employer under contract with URW as of the last payroll date prior to July 31, 1981 who (I) had not completed but would complete their 30-day probationary period before July 31 , and (2) from whom URW had received a member- ship application before July 31, 1981. " A total of 119 envelopes containing ballots and instructions were re- turned to URW as undeliverable MAY DEPARTMENT STORES CO. sured Peterson of answers to his questions prior to November 1. In letters dated September 24, Peter- son acknowledged compliance with Burki's Sep- tember 1 requests and Burki formally advised Pe- terson of the referendum results and the effects of the impending affiliation , including that "[o]n 1 November, the URW will become United Retail Workers Union Local No. 881 , affiliated with the [UFCW]." Burki's letter further asserted that there would be no change in URW officers or structure for a period of 3 years, that as a UFCW local, URW would remain autonomous and would con- tinue making all decisions regarding collective bar- gaining, grievance handling, and arbitration, and that there would be no change in the current col- lective-bargaining agreements with the Respond- ent.12 On October 16, the Respondent's chairman, Thomas Rafferty, sent the following letter to Burki: Venture has been advised of the results of the mail referendum conducted among your membership on the issue of affiliation with the [UFCW]. We understand that among your total membership of approximately 22,000 per- sons, there were 6,823 votes cast favoring the affiliation and 2,344 votes opposed to the affili- ation. This certainly does not represent an overwhelming level of participation, nor a clear mandate by your membership favoring affiliation. It is also our understanding that you are unable to separately determine the wishes of Venture associates 13 regarding representation by the UFCW, an issue of vital importance to our associates. We have asked for that infor- mation on several occasions and it has not been provided, and we have been led to be- lieve it is unavailable . The history of your union's representation of Venture associates is such that few of them have ever had the chance to express their desires about represen- tation by the URW, and this referendum has now deprived them of an opportunity for self- determination concerning representation by yet another union. The failure of the URW to conduct a sepa- rate referendum among Venture associates is made more unreasonable by the fact that even if all Venture associates had voted, they would have been so outnumbered by your members employed by other larger employers that there 12 In his letter, Burki also informed Peterson that contract ratification procedures would remain the same and that negotiation committees would be selected as in the past 13 The Respondent refers to its employees as "associates " 663 is no way the voice of Venture associates could have effectively been heard. We also understand that voting in the refer- endum was limited to URW members, a condi- tion that excluded non-members from the op- portunity to vote. In view of these considerations, and others arising out of the substantial difference be- tween an independent [URW] and your new identity as a local of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, the company has requested that the National Labor Relations Board conduct a vote among the associates in our union stores to allow them to indicate their desires regarding future union representa- tion.14 We will, as of November 1, 1981, sus- pend transmission of dues and initiation fees to the Union. Naturally, if our associates vote to select Local 881 of the [UFCW] as their bar- gaining representative, Venture will recognize and deal with that Union, as always in good faith. If on the other hand, they vote to reject such union representation, any union dues and fees deducted from our associates after the ef- fective date of the affiliation . . . will be re- turned to them. Venture intends to create an escrow account for such purpose. In view of this action, Venture will decline to recognize Local 881 unless and until this question con- cerning representation is resolved. [Fns. added.] Also, on October 16 the Respondent's store man- agers gave a scripted speech to employees, explain- ing its position regarding the affiliation, its request for a Board-conducted election, and its planned re- fusal to recognize Local 881 as the employees' col- lective-bargaining representative. Further, the Re- spondent mailed numerous letters to employees re- garding its position on the affiliation. On November 1, in accordance with the merger agreement between URW and UFCW, UFCW granted a charter to the URW officers, and suc- cesssors "under the title of United Retail Workers Union, Local 881." The Pre- and Post-Affiliation Structure of Local 881 Prior to the effective date of the affiliation, URW was composed of four locals, each with a president, vice president, secretary, and sergeant-at- arms elected from among and by the respective local membership. Fourteen of the sixteen local of- 14 The Respondent's request for an election , filed October 16, was dis- missed by the Regional Director for Region 13 on December 10 pending resolution of the unfair labor practice charges in this case 664 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ficers were elected to and constituted the board of governors of the URW. Except in their capacity as members of the board of governors, the local lead- ership had no authority to pledge the credit or dis- burse funds of the URW or any local, negotiate contracts with employers, file or process griev- ances pursuant to collective-bargaining agreements, resolve disputes arising among members or locals, or discipline members for violating URW's consti- tution and bylaws. Although they received no compensation for their services as local officers, they received approximately $150 a month for their services on the board of governors. Administratively, the URW was further com- posed of the executive council and its professional staff. National Executive Director Burki and Vice President/Treasurer Koukl were the sole members of the council. The professional staff was made up of nine national officers and supervisors, including the comptroller and vice president of field oper- ations, and nine field representatives. The board of governors and the executive council were responsi- ble for the negotiation and administration of collec- tive-bargaining agreements,15 the execution and en- forcement of contracts necessary for the Union's day-to-day operation, and the resolution of discipli- nary matters. Pursuant to the URW constitution, collective-bargaining agreements were ratified by a majority vote of affected local members at a meet- ing called for this purpose. Following the affiliation, URW's four locals were redesignated as administrative districts of Local 881. In accordance with the merger agree- ment, Local 881 is run by an executive council and general executive board. Burki, Koukl, and the nine officers and supervisors from URW's profes- sional staff serve on the new executive council. The general executive board consists of the execu- tive council members and all members of the former URW board of governors, i.e., the former URW local officers. Local 881 also retains the identical professional staff of URW. The executive council manages Local 88l's daily affairs. The gen- eral executive board elects the executive council, conducts disciplinary trials, and hears appeals from Council/Board President Burki's findings in disci- plinary proceedings. Burki and designated repre- sentatives continue to negotiate collective-bargain- ing agreements, and contract ratification is by a majority of affected membership; however, the UFCW International reserves the right to approve initial proposals and to approve contracts prior to their submission to members for ratification. Local 881 has the exclusive authority to interpret and en- ' 6 Burkl and Koukl lead all collective-bargaining negotiations force its collective-bargaining agreements , includ- ing processing, withdrawing, and settling griev- ances, and submitting them to arbitration. The URW constitution permitted a strike on a two-thirds vote of the membership present at a spe- cial strike meeting. Pursuant to the merger agree- ment, Local 881 may strike on the two-thirds vote of affected membership at a special meeting and approval by Local 881's president or the UFCW International. URW dues were set by a simple ma- jority of stewards and delegates attending the URW national convention; whereas, Local 881 members may establish dues at regular or special meetings, subject to minimums set forth in the UFCW constitution and approval by the UFCW president. Unlike the URW, UFCW charges a $4.70 per capita tax monthly. In accordance with the merger agreement, however, UFCW agreed not to institute the tax for a period of 3 years fol- lowing affiliation. The Positions of the Parties The Respondent challenges the legality of the af- filiation, asserting that due process was not ob- served in the conduct of the referendum and that there has been a substantial change in continuity of representative as a result of the affiliation. More specifically, the Respondent contends that a unit- by-unit vote should have been undertaken and that in the absence of proof that a majority of its em- ployees voted in favor of affiliation, it has no obli- gation to recognize or bargain with Local 881. Further, the Respondent asserts that postaffiliation changes in the administrative structure of URW, as well as changes in, among other things, officers and their authority, dues, and fees and their use, contract ratification procedures, strike approval, and membership disciplinary rules have resulted in a substantial loss of autonomy and give rise to a question concerning representation. The General Counsel contends that due process was safeguard- ed, that unit-by-unit proof of approval of the affili- ation is unnecessary under the circumstances, and that Local 881 is substantially the same as URW. Analysis A. Due Process In conjunction with Section 9(a), Section 8(a)(5) of the Act provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain col- lectively with the exclusive representative of its employees. In matters of affiliation, the Board has long held that an employer's duty to bargain with the employees' representative continues so long as the employees have been given an adequate oppor- MAY DEPARTMENT STORES CO. tunity to vote and there is continuity in the pre- and post-affiliation representative . 16 In assessing the adequacy of the opportunity to vote on affili- ation, the Board has traditionally examined wheth- er due-process safeguards have been met, i.e., whether employees were given notice of the im- pending affiliation election and a sufficient opportu- nity to discuss the affiliation and to ask questions about it, and whether precautions were taken to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. In the instant case, the record establishes that URW undertook elaborate preparations for the conduct of the mail ballot referendum. On June 23, following the unanimous approval of the affiliation plan by URW local presidents, the executive coun- cil, staff supervisors, and the board of governors, URW notified all members of the proposed affili- ation, and on June 24 issued press releases regard- ing the August mail ballot referendum. On June 25, URW notified all stewards that a special affiliation conference for stewards would be held on July 27. On July 10, URW mailed all members a notice of special membership meetings and information about the referendum. Included in this notice was a copy of the merger agreement and its appendices. URW also posted notices concerning the meetings and referendum. All meetings were conducted as scheduled and members were given an opportunity to discuss the affiliation with URW and UFCW representatives. Instructions, ballots, and preprinted return envelopes were mailed to all URW members on July 31 by an independent direct mail company. During the balloting period, URW operated an af- filiation "hot-line" to answer members' questions. The referendum closed on August 20, and on August 21, LaSalle Bank, the URW-appointed trustee of all mailed-in ballots, tabulated the ballots and issued its tally. The foregoing events make it clear that URW members, including the Respondent's employees, were given sufficient notice of the election, an op- portunity to discuss and make an informed decision regarding affiliation, and an opportunity to vote. It is equally clear that the integrity and secrecy of the ballots were maintained. Accordingly, we find that due process was observed in the conduct of the referendum. Finally, there is no merit to the Respondent's contention that it has no duty to bargain with the Union because, as a result of the commingling of ballots in the affiliation vote, the precise vote in the 16 Financial Institution Employees, supra In light of our finding below that the Board's traditional due-process requirements have been met in this case, we find it unnecessary to consider whether, in view of the Su- preme Court's opinion in Financial Institution Employees, such require- ments need be fulfilled in all instances where affiliations occur (id , 472 U S at 199 fn 6). 665 Respondent's two bargaining units cannot be known. As it is clear, for the reasons discussed below, that the affiliation did not result in a lack of continuity in the representative, and as due-process safeguards on the affiliation election were clearly met, it is unnecessary to determine precisely how each unit of employees of each employer voted.'' Where there is continuity of representative, an em- ployer has no more right to seize the occasion for questioning majority sentiment in the unit than it would have if the bargaining representative had simply changed its own constitution. See Financial Institution Employees, 475 U.S. at 202. Continuity of representative was maintained in this case not- withstanding the affiliation with the UFCW. B. Continuity of Representative As we recently noted in Western Commercial Transport, 288 NLRB 214 (1988), the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Financial Institution Employees Local 1182, supra, indicates that, at least with respect to the continuity factor, the general test for determining whether the affiliation of a bargaining representative with another labor orga- nization raises a question concerning representation is whether the affiliation produces a change that is "`sufficiently dramatic to alter the union's identity."' Western Commercial Transport, 288 NLRB at 217- 218, quoting Financial Institution Employees Local 1182, supra, 475 U.S. at 206 (emphasis added). In Western Commercial Transport, the original union local lost virtually all its autonomy by being totally submerged in a district lodge local of the Interna- tional labor organization with which it was affiliat- ing. No role was open to the original union's offi- cers except for the possibility that one of them could serve as a chief steward for the bargaining unit or as a unit representative to help create a local negotiating committee; but all day-to-day contract administration was to be taken over by a district lodge staff member. In the present case no such dramatic alteration of identity has been shown. Rather, the record estab- lishes some organizational changes with respect to relations between the four URW locals and a slight diminution in autonomy in relation to the UFCW International. Although URW's four locals repre- senting the Respondent's employees were merged to form one UFCW Local-Local 881-this new 17 See House of the Good Samaritan , 248 NLRB 539 (1980) (no sepa- rate vote by employer's employees required where affiliation did not dis- turb continuity of representative), American Enka Co, 231 NLRB 1335, 1337 (1977) (same) The same principle is implicit in the holding of Amer- ican National Insurance Co, 281 NLRB 713 (1986), in which the Board found the employer obligated to bargain with the union following a merger, notwithstanding that ballots in the nationwide balloting were commingled 281 NLRB at 714 666 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD local has four administrative districts correspond- ing to the old locals and their governance has re- mained substantially the same. Thus, despite the reconstitution, the local officers who were elected by the membership to URW's board of governors prior to affiliation, now serve on Local 881's general executive board. Likewise, the former URW executive council, composed of Burki and Koukl, and the former URW profession- al staff, now serve as Local 881's executive council and are also part of the general executive board. Clearly, only the names of the governing bodies and the organizational subgroupings have been al- tered; the leaders and the essential structures remain the same. The authority of the pre- and post-affiliation leadership also remains constant, as evidenced by the fact that URW local officers had no authority other than that exercised in their capacity as mem- bers of the board of governors. Significantly, the authority of Local 881's leaders to negotiate collec- tive-bargaining agreements and fashion bargaining proposals and discipline members, and the author- ity of members to ratify collective-bargaining agreements and call strikes, are virtually identical to their preaffiliation authority. Further, Local 881 has retained all URW property and assets, includ- ing the URW treasury. Additionally, although UFCW locals set initiation fees and dues by majori- ty membership vote subject to minimums set forth in the UFCW constitution and although the Inter- national charges a monthly per capita tax, there is no evidence of an affiliation-related dues increase. The merger agreement explicitly states that no tax will be imposed on Local 881 members for a period of 3 years.1 s Also, we note that former URW members in good standing became members of UFCW and were eligible to run for UFCW office on affiliation. Finally, we note that Local 881 stood ready to assume the collective-bargaining agreements between URW and the Respondent at the time of the affiliation and attempted to do so. In view of the retention of local officers and assets and the corresponding evidence showing that there has been no substantial impairment or reduc- tion of local autonomy, we find that continuity of representative has been preserved. Further, this finding of Local 881's separate autonomy is not ne- gated by the right of the International under its constitution to approve certain actions taken by the local, including approval of initial negotiated pro- 18 According to the UFCW's International constitution, arts 14-16, during this intervening 3-year period (specifically on or before August 1983) a convention of the International was scheduled to be held at which Local 881 would have the right to present resolutions to change the per capita tax requirement or any other provision in the International constitution posals drafted by the local, and collective-bargain- ing agreements negotiated by the local prior to submission to local union membership for ratifica- tion. These reserved rights of approval , allowing the International only to react to initiatives of the local, do not serve to supplant the local as the entity primarily responsible for the conduct of its affairs. Indeed, if such conditions were sufficient to warrant a finding that an affiliation had produced changes in the local that raised a question concern- ing representation, this would be tantamount to a conclusion that virtually any affiliation of a local with an International would raise such a question. We see no basis in either precedent or policy for such a rule. Given that due-process safeguards in the affili- ation referendum were observed and there exists a continuity of representative, we find that the affili- ation of URW with UFCW was proper and raises no question concerning representation. The Unfair Labor Practices The Respondent admits in its answer to the com- plaint, and also acknowledges by way of the par- ties' joint stipulation, that it has refused to recog- nize and bargain with Local 881. Having found that the affiliation raises no question concerning representation, we find that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refus- ing to recognize and bargain with Local 881 as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the units described above. The Respondent fur- ther admits and has stipulated, and we find, that since November 1 it has: (1) refused to process grievances filed by Local 881 pursuant to the appli- cable collective-bargaining agreements; (2) refused to grant Local 881 representatives access to its stores for purposes of administering the collective- bargaining agreements in accordance with those agreements; (3) refused to transmit initiation fees and dues to Local 881, as required by the collec- tive-bargaining agreements; (4) refused to adhere to the union-shop provisions of the collective-bargain- ing agreements; and (5) refused to submit the names and addresses of newly hired employees in accordance with the collective-bargaining agree- ments. We find that by engaging in the enumerated conduct, the Respondent has unilaterally modified its collective-bargaining agreements with Local 881 and has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Retail Workers Union, Local No. 881, chartered by United Food and Commercial Work- ers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC is the ex- MAY DEPARTMENT STORES CO. clusive bargaining representative of all the Re- spondent's employees in the following units: (a) employees employed in the Venture op- erations at the following locations: 1) 9449 Skokie Boulevard, Skokie, Illinois; 2) 116 South Waukegan, Deerfield, Illinois; 3) 444 East Rand Road, Arlington Heights, Illinois; 4) 521 East North Avenue, Glendale Heights, Illinois ; 5) 125 West 87th Street, Chicago, Illi- nois; 6) 11440 South Halsted Street, Chicago, Illinois; 7) 7601 South Cicero Avenue, Chica- go, Illinois; 8) 6063 Broadway, Merrillville, In- diana; 9) 1311 Golf Road, Schaumburg, Illi- nois; and 10) 1740 North Kostner, Chicago, Il- linois, but excluding all managers and other employees defined as supervisors, trainees (to a maximum of six per store) and department managers, office clerical employees, security personnel (including guards and watchmen), professional employees and craftsmen perform- ing work in said stores, but who are not part of the facility's normal employee complement. (b) All employees employed in Venture op- erations located at 2800 North Water Street, Decatur, Illinois, but excluding all managers and other employees defined as supervisors, trainees (to a maximum of six per store) and department managers, office clerical employ- ees, security personnel (including guards and watchmen), professional employees and crafts- men performing work in said store, but who are not part of the facility's normal employee complement. 2. By refusing on and after November 1, 1981, to recognize and bargain with Local 881 as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of the employees in the units described above, the Respondent has vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1). 3. By refusing to process grievances filed by Local 881, to grant Local 881 representatives access to its stores for purposes of administering its collective-bargaining agreements, to transmit initi- ation fees and dues to Local 881, to enforce the union-shop provisions of the collective-bargaining agreements, and to submit the names and addresses of newly hired employees-all in accordance with the applicable collective-bargaining agreements- the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , we shall order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. With respect to dues and fees collected by the 667 Respondent pursuant to checkoff, but withheld from Local 881, we shall order that all such funds be remitted to Local 881, with interest to be com- puted in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded. 1 9 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, May Department Stores Compa- ny, Venture Stores Division, Chicago and Decatur, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with Local 881 as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the two units described in this de- cision. (b) Refusing to process grievances filed by Local 881, pursuant to the applicable collective-bargain- ing agreements. (c) Refusing to grant Local 881 representatives access to its stores for purposes of administering the collective-bargaining agreements. (d) Refusing to transmit initiation fees and dues to Local 881, pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreements. (e) Refusing to enforce the union-shop provisions of the collective-bargaining agrements. (f) Refusing to submit the names and addresses of newly hired employees to Local 881, as required by the collective-bargaining agreements. (g) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Recognize and, on request, bargain with Local 881 as the exclusive representative of all em- ployees in the units described in this decision with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an un- derstanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Process all grievances filed on or after No- vember 1, 1981, by Local 881, pursuant to the ap- plicable collective-bargaining agreements. 19 In accordance with our decision in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 ( 1987), interest on and after January 1, 1987, shall be computed at the "short -term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S C § 6621 Interest on amounts accrued prior to January 1, 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amendment to 26 U S.C § 6621), shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 668 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Allow Local 881 representatives access to its stores for purposes of administering the collective- bargaining agreements. (d) Transmit to Local 881 all fees and dues col- lected on or after November 1, 1981, with interest, as set forth in the remedy section of this decision. (e) Adhere to the union-shop provisions of the collective-bargaining agreements. (f) Submit the names and addresses of newly hired employees to Local 881, as required by the collective-bargaining agreements. (g) Post at its 10 Chicago, Illinois area stores and its Decatur, Illinois store copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."20 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and main- tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (h) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply. 20 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 " 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with United Retail Workers Union, Local 881, chartered by United Food and Commercial Work- ers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC as the ex- clusive bargaining representative of our employees in the following units: (a) employees employed in the Venture Op- erations at the following locations: 1) 9449 Skokie Boulevard, Skokie, Illinois; 2) 116 South Waukegan, Deerfield, Illinois; 3) 444 East Rand Road, Arlington Heights, Illinois; 4) 521 East North Avenue, Glendale Heights, Illinois; 5) 125 West 87th Street, Chicago, Illi- nois; 6) 11440 South Halsted Street, Chicago, Illinois; 7) 7601 South Cicero Avenue, Chica- go, Illinois; 8) 6063 Broadway, Merrillville, In- diana; 9) 1311 Golf Road, Schaumburg, Illi- nois; and 10) 1740 North Kostner, Chicago, Il- linois, but excluding all managers and other employees defined as supervisors, trainees (to a maximum of six per store) and department managers, office clerical employees, security personnel (including guards and watchmen), professional employees and craftsmen perform- ing work in said stores, but who are not part of the facility's normal employee complement. (b) All employees employed in Venture op- erations located at 2800 North Water Street, Decatur, Illinois, but excluding all managers and other employees defined as supervisors, trainees (to a maximum of six per store) and department managers, office clerical employ- ees, security personnel (including guards and watchmen), professional employees and crafts- men performing work in said store, but who are not part of the facility's normal employee complement. WE WILL NOT refuse to process grievances filed by Local 881, pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreements in effect with Local 881. WE WILL NOT refuse to grant Local 881 repre- sentatives access to our stores for purposes of ad- ministering the collective-bargaining agreements. WE WILL NOT refuse to transmit initiation fees and dues to Local 881, pursuant to the checkoff provisions of the collective-bargaining agreements. WE WILL NOT refuse to adhere to the union-shop provisions of the collective-bargaining agreements. WE WILL NOT refuse to submit the names and addresses of newly hired employees to Local 881, as required by the collective-bargaining agree- ments. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain with Local 881 as the exclusive representative of all employees in the units described above with re- spect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if an under- standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. WE WILL process all grievances filed on or after November 1, 1981, by Local 881, pursuant to the applicable collective-bargaining agreements. MAY DEPARTMENT STORES CO. 669 WE WILL allow Local 881 representatives access WE WILL submit the names and addresses of to its stores for purposes of administering the col- newly hired employees to Local 881, as required lective-bargaining agreements. by the collective-bargaining agreements. WE WILL transmit to Local 881 all fees and dues collected pursuant to checkoff on or after Novem- MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COM- ber 1, 1981 , with interest. PANY, VENTURE STORES DIVISION WE WILL adhere to the union -shop provisions of the collective-bargaining agreements.