Food & Commercial Workers Local 324 (Albertson'S)

FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 324 (ALBERTSON'S) 957 United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 324, United Food and Commercial Workers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (Albertson's, Inc.) and John M. Cacas. Case 21-CB-9847 August 24, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On November 4, 1987, Administrative Law Judge Jerrold H. Shapiro issued the attached deci- sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has consid- ered the decision and the record in light of the ex- ceptions 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, United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 324, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Santa Ana, California, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. failed to give him reasonable notice of the money he owed, failed to afford him an adequate opportunity to pay the money he owed, and failed to warn him he would be discharged if he failed to pay the money he owed. Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor prac- tices. On the entire record , from my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and having considered the par- ties' posthearing briefs, I make the following , FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED Albertson's, Inc., the employer involved in this case, is engaged in the retail grocery business and operates stores located in the State of California. During the course and conduct of its business operations in California, Albert- son's annually derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and annually purchases and receives goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sup- pliers located outside the State of California. Albertson's is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Under the circum- stances, I find it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the Respondent admits, and I find that Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. Brian Sweeney, for the General Counsel. Robert A. Cantore (Gilbert & Sackman), for the Respond- ent. John M. Cacas, for himself. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JERROLD H. SHAPIRO, Administrative Law Judge. This proceeding in which a hearing was held on 30 July 1987 is based on an unfair labor practice charge filed 17 March 1987 by John M. Cacas (Cacas) against United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 324 (Respondent) and on a complaint issued 13 May 1987 by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) alleging that Cacas' employer, Albertson's, Inc., at Re- spondent's request, discharged him for failing to pay to Respondent the dues and initiation fee owed Respondent under the union-security agreement between Respondent and Albertson's, and that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act) because, prior to requesting Cacas' discharge, it 290 NLRB No. 115 III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Evidence Albertson's retail clerks employed in its stores located in certain areas of southern California, including Santa Ana, California, are represented by Respondent for pur- poses of collective bargaining. During the time material, Respondent and Albertson's were parties to a collective- bargaining contract covering these employees . Article II of the contract contained a union-security agreement which, in pertinent part, included the following provi- sions: A. UNION SECURITY. All employees shall, as a condition of employment, pay to the Union the initiation fees and/or reinstatement fees and periodic dues lawfully required by the Union . This obliga- tion shall commence on the thirty-first (31st) day following the date of employment by the Employer who is signatory to this Agreement , or the effective date of this Agreement, or the date of signature, whichever is later. E. ENFORCEMENT. The parties hereto agree that this Article II shall be implemented and en- forced as hereinafter set forth. 1. Introductory Letter. This letter will be sent by the Union to the employee's home (if the Employer l has complied with Article II-B of this Agreement 958 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD requiring the Employer to supply such home ad- dress to the Union), or to the store where the em- ployee is employed. (a) This letter will quote the language of Article II-A of this Agreement and advise employees of the Union's office hours and other matters relating to the employee's satisfaction of his obligations under Article II-A of this Agreement. (b) A copy of this letter shall be sent to the Em- ployer's Industrial Relations Department on the same date that the original of the letter is sent to the employee. 2. All employees will be billed for their appropri- ate initiation fee and/or reinstatement fee and/or periodic dues lawfully applied in accordance with the Bylaws of the respective Local Unions. 3. Delinquency Notice. This notice will be sent to the employee's home address (if the Employer has furnished the Union with such information); other- wise it will be sent to the store in which the em- ployee works, with copies sent to the Industrial Re- lations Department of the Employer and to the store manager. The delinquency letter is to be sent to the em- ployee specifically advising him that: (a) He is delinquent in his financial obligations to the Union; (b) Advising him of the specific amount due; (c) How the amount is computed; (d) The date the sum must be received by the Union; (e) The penalty for noncompliance, i e., dis- charge if the obligation has not been met; and (f) Address and telephone number of the Local Union and hours of operation. 4. Termination Notice. The termination notice shall be sent to the Employer involved. The copy to be sent to the employee shall be sent to the em- ployee's home address (if the Employer has fur- nished the Union with such information). If the Em- ployer has not furnished such information, the copy shall be sent to the employee at the store where the employee works. (a) The termination notice will be sent at such time as the employee has ignored all efforts by the Union to obtain compliance with this Article II. (b) The notice will advise the Employer that the employee has failed to comply with the Union Se- curity Clause of this Agreement in that the employ- ee has not paid the initiation fees and/or reinstate- ment fees and/or dues as lawfully applied. In addi- tion, the notice shall advise that the Union has com- plied with the decisions of the National Labor Rela- tions Board, as well as its own International Consti- tution and Bylaws with regard to the required pro- cedural steps of notifying the employee of the delin- quency. (c) The termination notice shall also advise that the Union will not accept any payments from the employee or on account of the employee from and after the date thereof. The Union agrees that it will not in fact accept any such payments. (d) The Employer shall terminate the employee at the end of the current week's work schedule after receipt by the Employer of the termination notice. Respondent administers dues payments for approxi- mately 22,000 members. It processes monthly dues pay- ments for between 400 and 500 new members weekly, and does this in the following fashion. On employing a new hire in the unit represented by Respondent, the em- ployers, including Albertson's, send Respondent a "notice of new hire" which gives the employee's date of employment, name, social security number, job classifica- tion, rate of pay, store location, and most of the time the employee's home address. It is not unusual, however, for the "notice of new hire" to fail to include the employee's home address. Respondent places all this information into its computer system and the system is programed to print out the above-described "Introductory Letter" at the appropriate time and if, in response to this letter, the employee does not fulfill his or her union-security obliga- tion in a timely manner, the computer is programed to print out the above-described "Delinquency Notice" at the appropriate time. If Respondent has not been given an employee's home address, the "Introductory Letter" and "Delinquency Notice" are mailed to the employee at the store where he or she works . In all cases courtesy copies of the "Introductory Letter" and "Delinquency Notice" are mailed to the employer at the store where the employee works. On or about 3 June 1986 Charging Party Cacas began work for Albertson's as a grocery clerk at its store 1650 located in Santa Ana, California. The clerks employed at this store are represented by Respondent and covered by the above-described union-security agreement . Previous- ly, for approximately 1 year during 1985-1986, Cacas was employed by Albertson's as a grocery clerk in Las Vegas, Nevada, where the clerks are represented by one of Respondent's sister locals. The contract between that union and Albertson's did not contain a union-security agreement because Nevada is a so-called right-to-work state. Cacas did not join the Union or pay dues and fees to the union while employed by Albertson's Las Vegas, Nevada store. As a matter of fact no one ever asked him to, join the Union while employed at Albertson's Las Vegas, Nevada store. Although Cacas began work at Albertson's Santa Ana, California store on or about 3 June 1986, Albertson's did not notify Respondent of his employment until 10 No- vember 1986, when Respondent received a "notice of new hire" from Albertson's notifying it of Cacas' em- ployment. The notice, however, failed to give Cacas' home address and gave an incorrect social security number. Cacas, throughout his employment at the Santa Ana store, worked the night shift, 12 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. or 9 a.m. On 8 September 1986 he was promoted to night crew chief, but on Friday, 21 November 1986, was de- moted to his clerk position. During the time material, the manager of the Santa Ana store, known as the store di- rector, was James Sidenglanz. FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 324 (ALBERTSON'S) 959 Louis Cruz, Respondent's business representative as- signed to administer the/collective-bargaining contract covering Albertson's cltks employed at the Santa Ana store where Cacas worked, testified he spoke to Cacas on 19 November 1986 for the first time about his obliga- tion to comply with^the contractual union -security agree- ment. In this regard, it is undisputed that during the latter part of November 1986 Cruz met with Cacas and the other me hers of the store's night crew, at the end of their shif% to listen to their grievances concerning Store Manger Sidenglanz , who had only recently as- sumed that position.' It is also undisputed that after lis- tening to the night crew's grievances and their expressed feeling that if they could discuss their grievances with Sidenglanz' boss, District Manager Simunson, that Si- monson would resolve them, that Cruz ended the meet- ing by stating he would try to arrange for a meeting be- tween the night crew and Simonson. Cruz further testified that after the meeting ended, Cacas came to him and discussed in greater detail his personal grievances concerning Sidenglanz. When ques- tioned by counsel for the General Counsel as an adverse witness, Cruz testified that at this time, "I asked him [Cacas] if he had already joined the Union " and when Cacas answered "no," Cruz said nothing else to him con- cerning that subject. Later when questioned by counsel for Respondent, Cruz embellished and added significant- ly to this testimony; he testified, "I told him [Cacas] that I noticed that his name was not . . . in the book2 .. . and . . . asked him if he had come in to join the Union, and he [Cacas] said no," and further testified that he re- sponded by telling Cacas, "he had to come in and join the Union." Later when cross-examined by counsel for the General Counsel, Cruz, when asked what he said to Cacas concerning his financial obligations to the Union, testified, "I believe I said that he had to come down and join the Union" and when asked if he said anything else to Cacas on that subject, testified "I don't remember." Cacas specifically denied Cruz asked whether he was a member of Respondent and denied Cruz stated anything to him about joining Respondent. I credit Cacas' and reject Cruz' testimony because Cacas' testimonial de- meanor, which was good, was better than Cruz'. Also, as described above, Cruz' disputed testimony was not given in a straightforward manner. On 26 November 1986, pursuant to the above-de- scribed article II(E) of its contract with Albertson's, Re- spondent mailed an "Introductory Letter" to Cacas. Be- cause it had not been furnished with Cacas ' home ad- dress by Albertson's, the letter was addressed to Cacas at the store where he worked. In addition, as was its prac- tice, Respondent mailed a courtesy copy of the letter to the store where he worked. The letter quoted verbatim article II(A) of the contract, the contractual union-secu- rity agreement. The letter then, in pertinent part, stated that Cacas' failure to comply with his union-security ob- ligation under article II(A) of the contract might result 'Cruz places this meeting as occurring on 19 November 1986, where- as, Cacas places it as occurring during the last week of November 1986. 2 Referring to the book Cruz maintains which lists the names of the employees employed in the several stores whose employees he is assigned to represent. in his termination and informed Cacas he owed Respond- ent monthly dues of $21 a month for the month of De- cember 1986 and owed an initiation fee of $275. The letter gave Respondent's address and office hours and advised Cacas to come to Respondent's office no later than the 31st day from the date of his employment to make arrangement for the payment of the $296 he owed Respondent. As is discussed infra, there is a dispute whether Cacas received this letter. Toward the middle of December 1986, Cacas tele- phoned Cruz and asked whether he succeeded in arrang- ing the meeting between Albertson's district manager, Si- monson, and the night crew. Cruz answered in the nega- tive. He explained that both himself and Simonson had been on vacation and that Simonson had failed to return his telephone calls, but assured Cacas he intended to ar- range for a meeting between Simonson and the night crew. Nothing was stated during this conversation about Cacas' obligation to join Respondent or comply with the contractual union-security provision. On 31 December 1986, pursuant to the above-de- scribed article II(E) of its contract with Albertson's, Re- spondent mailed a "Delinquency Notice" to Cacas. Be- cause it had not been furnished with Cacas' home ad- dress by Albertson's, the notice was addressed to Cacas at the store where he worked. In addition, as was its practice, Respondent mailed a courtesy copy of the notice to the store where he worked . The "Delinquency Notice" advised Cacas he was "delinquent in [his] finan- cial obligations to [Respondent]" and further explained, in pertinent part: Union records indicate that the following amounts are past due: Based on your classification of employment you must pay dues for the months of Dec . 1986 thru Dec. 1986 at $21.00 per month, equaling $21 .00, and your initiation/reinstatement fee of $275.00 for a total of $296.00 Under Article II of the collective bargaining agreement, it is your duty to meet the financial obli- gations imposed by the Agreement or your contin- ued employment may be in jeopardy, and you will be subject to termination should you fail to meet your obligation. The amount owed must be received in the Union's office at the close of business on or before January 14, 1987. If you do not meet this obligation by the specified date, the penalty for noncompliance will be discharge from employment.-This is your final notice- As discussed infra, there is a dispute whether Cacas re- ceived this notice. During the first week of January 1987, Cacas tele- phoned Cruz and asked whether he had made progress in arranging the meeting between Simonson and the night crew. Cruz told him he had been unable to contact Simonson who had failed to return his telephone calls, but intended to keep on trying to arrange for a meeting between Simonson and the night crew . Cruz then asked 960 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD whether Cacas had been a union member while em- ployed by Albertson's in Las Vegas. Cacas answered "no." Cruz told him he was required to join Respondent because in California, unlike Nevada, there was no right- to-work law. Cruz also explained to Cacas that under the collective-bargaining contract between Albertson's and Respondent, Cacas was required to join Respondent as a condition of his employment. Cruz gave Cacas one of Respondent's several telephone numbers and told him to phone that number and stated, "they will take care of you."3 During the first week of January 1987, Cacas, immedi- ately after his above-described conversation with Cruz, followed Cruz' instruction and dialed the number that Cruz had given him, one of the several numbers for Re- spondent's office. A lady answered and Cacas either spoke to that lady or to another lady to whom the call was transferred. Cacas introduced himself and stated he had just spoken to Cruz who had told him to call this number and had told him that the person at this number would "take care of me as far as joining the Union." In reply to the lady's inquiry, Cacas stated his social securi- ty number and the lady punched that number into a computer. After a moment the lady told him she did not have any information concerning him4 and asked how long he had been working for his employer. Cacas told her he had been employed by Albertson's since approxi- mately May 1986. In response the lady asked, "And you have not received a notice yet?" Cacas stated, "No." The lady replied by stating, "But you have been talking to Lou Cruz" and Cacas answered, "Yes," he had just finished talking to Cruz and had been told by Cruz to call this call number and he would be taken care of The lady told Cacas he would receive a notice from Re- spondent that would explain everything he needed to know about joining Respondent. Cacas asked why he had not already received this notice because he had been working for Albertson's for several months. The lady stated she "would not know" because "it is not her job." The next day Cacas again called the number that Cruz had given him. He did this because, after considering the matter, he feared that because he had been employed by Albertson's for several months he would owe Respond- ent a lot of money and wanted to find out the amount he owed. He spoke to the lady who spoke to him the previ- ous day or to another lady. He introduced himself and stated he was calling about how much he owed Re- spondent, that he had spoken to Respondent's business representative, Cruz, and to someone at that telephone number the previous day, that he had been told he would be receiving a notice from Respondent, but wanted to know how much money he owed Respondent because he had been employed by Albertson's for several months and wanted to be able to plan ahead prior to get- ting the notice so he could save a sufficient amount of money to pay what he owed. The lady responded by telling him she was unable to supply him with this infor- J The above description of Cacas' early January 1987 telephone con- versation with Cruz is based on the testimony of Cacas, whose demeanor was good when he testified Cruz did not deny his testimony. 4 As I have noted supra, Albertson's had furnished Respondent with an incorrect social security number for Cacas mation because she did not have it because it was some- one else's job, but assured him he would be provided with this information very shortly in the notice Respond- ent was sending to him and apologized for not being able to help him.5 On either 22 January 1987 or 23 January 1987 at ap- proximately 8.45 a.m., Cruz personally spoke to Cacas, in the presence of Sidenglanz, about Cacas' obligation to join Respondent.' Cacas, a witness for the General Counsel, Cruz, an adverse witness for the General Coun- sel, and Sidenglanz, a witness for Respondent, testified about this conversation. Their testimony follows. Cacas testified he was on his way out of the store at the end of his work shift when he observed Cruz stand- ing in the store's pharmacy. Cacas walked over to where Cruz was standing and asked whether Cruz had heard anything from Simonson, Albertson's district manager. Cruz replied, "Shh, shh" and indicated he did not want to talk about that subject while Sidenglanz was in the vi- cinity and pointed over Cacas' shoulder to where Si- denglanz was standing approximately five or six steps away. Cacas indicated he understood. Cruz changed the subject and asked whether Cacas had joined Respondent. Cacas answered "no" and explained he had telephoned Respondent's office using the telephone number Cruz had given him and was told he was supposed to receive a notice from Respondent. Cruz asked, "You haven't gotten no notice yet?" When Cacas answered "no," Cruz and Cacas went to where Sidenglanz was standing nearby in front of a check stand and Cruz asked him if he had received any notices from Respondent concern- ing Cacas. Sidenglanz replied he had not received any- thing. Cruz indicated that Sidenglanz by that time should have received notices from Respondent concerning Cacas. Sidenglanz repeated he had not received any no- tices. Cruz told Cacas he had to join Respondent and told him to go to Respondent's office that day and be there by 4 p.m. and gave him directions on how to get there. This summarizes Cacas' testimony. Cruz testified he and Sidenglanz were standing at the front of the store, near the store's safe, which is adjacent to the store pharmacy, when Cacas approached them Before Cacas could say anything, Cruz asked whether he had joined Respondent. Cacas answered, "No." Cruz asked whether Cacas received a message that he had to be at Respondent's office by 4 p.m. that day. Cacas 5 The above-description of Cacas' early January 1987 telephone con- versations with the lady or ladies to whom he spoke when, in response to Cruz' instruction , he telephoned Respondent's office about joining Re- spondent is based on the undenied testimony of Cacas, whose demeanor was good when he testified Respondent, based on the testimony of its Dues Department Supervisor Schultz, argues Cacas' testimony was inher- ently incredible because, if he is believed, the persons he spoke to deviat- ed from certain established procedures in answering his inquiries, i e, did not refer him to someone with the necessary expertise to answer his ques- tions and did not punch his name into the computer when the social secu- rity number he gave failed to generate any employment information Re- spondent's contention is without ment because in a labor organization of approximately 22,000 members it is not inherently incredible that on oc- casion some of its office clerical employees do not follow the procedures their supervisors assume they are following 6 Cacas dates this conversation as occurring 22 January, whereas Cruz and Sidenglanz date it as occurring 23 January FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 324 (ALBERTSON'S) stated he had not received the message . Cruz asked Si- denglanz whether he had given this message to Cacas.7 Sidenglanz answered "no" and explained this was the first time Sidenglanz had seen Cacas since Cruz on 20 January had given him the message . The conversation ended at this time with Cruz telling Cacas he had better "take care of this" by 4 p.m. that day. Cacas replied he intended to go down and join Respondent that day. This summarizes Cruz' testimony. Sidenglanz testified he and Cruz were walking toward the back of the store and Cacas was walking in the op- posite direction on his way pp,>., of the store when Cruz asked, "Is that John Cacas?" Sidenglanz answered in the affirmative. Cruz then initiated a conversation with Cacas by stating, "Oh, you're Cacas" and told Cacas .if he did not go to Respondent's office that day and take care of his dues payments he was going to be terminated. Cacas replied by stating, "I've never got a notice." Cruz ksked Sidenglanz whether Sidenglanz had seen any no- tices. Sidenglanz replied he had not seen any notices ad- dressed to Cacas. The conversation ended with Cruz tell- ing Cacas, "You've got to get down and take care of it today" and Cacas stating, "I'll get it taken care of." This summarizes Sidenglanz' testimony. .• I credit Cacas' description of his 22 January or 23 con- versation with Cruz because he testified about the con- versation on both direct and cross-examination in a straightforward and sincere manner and his testimonial demeanor, which was good, was better than Cruz' or Si- denglanz'. I also. note that .Cruz and Sidenglanz, in testi- fying about this conversation, not only failed to corrobo- rate one another in several significant respects, but each presented essentially different versions of what allegedly took place. In view of these circumstances , I have cred- ited Cacas' testimony. On either 22 or 23 January 1987 , the day Cruz told Cacas, as I have found supra, to be at Respondent's office by 4 p.m. that day and join Respondent, Cacas went to Respondent's office but did not get there until after 6 p.m. and found it was closed . The reason he was so late in getting to Respondent's office was that Cacas, who was 18 years old, did not own an automobile and it was not until his aunt, who he lived with, got home from work that he was able to borrow her automobile to drive to Respondent's office. On the day following his 22 January 1987 conversation with Cruz, as Cacas walked by the company bulletin board on the way to his workstation, he inadvertently bumped against the bulletin board and knocked off one of the posted documents . When he stopped to tack it back on, he observed it dealt with the subject of his obli- gation to join Respondent, a subject that Cruz had re- cently been speaking about to him, so he removed the document from the bulletin board and took it with him to his workstation and read it during his break period. r Cruz testified that on 20 January 1987 he telephoned Sidenglanz and asked him to tell Cacas to join Respondent by 4 p .m. 23 January 1987, and that if he failed to join Respondent by that time, that Respondent would send a notice requesting his termination . Sidenglanz did not cor- roborate this testimony and, as described infra, failed to corroborate Cruz' testimony that Cruz during his conversation with Cacas asked Cacas whether he had received this message. 961 The document was a one-page memorandum dated 25 June 1986 from Albertson's regional labor relations di- rector and was addressed to all the Company 's employ- ees who worked under "Retail Clerks Collective Bar- gaining Agreements" and was entitled "Your Termina- tion Which Could Result From Failure To Pay Union Dues and Initiation Fees."9 The memorandum described in detail the employees' obligation to pay initiation fees and dues to Respondent under the contractual union-se- curity agreement and informed them of Respondent's ob- ligation to send them an "Introductory Letter" explain- ing their obligation. The memorandum also stated in sub- stance that if they failed to pay their dues and fees by the time stated in the "Introductory Letter," that Re- spondent would send them a "Delinquency Notice" de- scribing in detail their obligation to pay Respondent's dues and initiation fees. The memorandum, among other things, also advised the employees that if they did not pay the moneys owed by the date specified in the "De- linquency Notice," that Albertson's would have no alter- native but to terminate their employment. On either Monday, 26 January 1987, or Tuesday, 27 January 1987, Cruz telephoned Sidenglanz and requested he terminate Cacas by the end of the week . Sidenglanz agreed. It was not until 29 January 1987 that Cacas returned to Respondent's office to join Respondent and pay what- ever moneys he owed. He testified he delayed before re- turning to Respondent's office because he had to wait until his aunt had a day off so he could use her automo- bile, and he intended to pay Respondent whatever mon- eyes he owed by using the $300 he had previously saved and another $300 from his 29 January paycheck.9 On 29 January when Cacas visited Respondent's office to join it and pay his dues and initiation fee, he was in- formed by Cruz that he was too late, that he should have followed Cruz' instruction and gone to Respondent's office the previous week and taken care of the matter then. Cacas told Cruz he had tried to get to Respond- ent's office but had arrived there late and told Cruz that he had in his possession $600 to pay whatever he owed Respondent. Cruz told him he was too late in tendering the money because Respondent had already sent Albert- son's his termination notice, and that he could not get his job back unless Albertson's agreed to rehire him. Cruz showed Cacas copies of the 26 November 1986 "Intro- ductory Letter" and the 31 December 1986 "Delinquen- cy Notice" which Respondent had sent to the store where Cacas worked. Cacas, after looking at these docu- ments, told Cruz he had never received any of them. Also during this meeting Respondent discovered Albert- son's had given it an incorrect social security number for Cacas, which explained to Respondent's clerical person- nel why the social security number given to them by s There is no evidence how long this memorandum had been posted on the store bulletin board . Cacas had not observed it prior to this date. However, it probably had been posted previously because Cacas did not normally make a conscious effort to read the materials posted on the bul- letin board, but only noticed those notices that were printed in large print, i.e., the minimum wage notice. 9 29 January was a payday. 962 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cacas had failed to generate any information from Re- spondent's computer. On 30 January 1987, at the conclusion of his work shift, Cacas was notified by Sidenglanz that Respondent had terminated his employment On 30 January, after Sidenglanz told Cacas he was dis- charged and after Cacas had gone to Sidenglanz' office to get his final paychecks, Cacas telephoned Cruz and protested his discharge. He told Cruz he had not re- ceived any of the notices that Respondent had addressed to him in care of the store and, in support of this, stated he had just been to the store for his final paychecks and had observed the notices sent to him by Respondent on Sidenglanz' desk, and asked Cruz "if I received those no- tices, what are they doing right there in his office on the desk." Cruz replied by stating this was something they could not discuss over the telephone and agreed to meet with him the following Tuesday. On Tuesday, 2 March 1987, Cacas and night crew em- ployee Gordie Owens met with Cruz and Cruz' boss at Respondent's office. Cacas reiterated that he had not re- ceived any of the notices sent to him by Respondent. In order to determine whether this was true, Cruz tele- phoned the store and spoke to the store's bookkeeper, Jo Wilson, and after speaking with Wilson told Cacas and Owens that Wilson had told him she had no idea wheth- er Cacas received the notices Respondent had addressed to him in care of the store, but that she did recall seeing an envelope addressed to him that had been left on the windowsill of the store's office. Owens stated he also re- membered seeing such an envelope addressed to Cacas on the office windowsill.' 0 The meeting ended with Cruz informing Cacas that Respondent intended to per- suade Albertson's to put him back to work even if it meant going to arbitration." Thereafter, on several oc- casions when Cacas spoke to Cruz about the matter, Cruz repeated Cacas should not worry but should give him a few more days, and assured him Respondent in- tended to persuade Albertson's to put him back to work even if it meant going to arbitration. On 10 March 1987 Cacas, Owens, Simonson, Sideng- lanz, Cruz, and another Respondent business representa- tive, met at the Albertson's store where Cacas used to work and discussed the night crew's grievances and Cacas' rehire. On the subject of Cacas' rehire, in an effort to persuade Albertson's district manager Simonson to rehire him, Cruz argued Albertson's had never given Cacas the notices Respondent sent to him in care of the store. More specifically, Cruz explained to Simonson how Respondent had sent several notices to Cacas ad- dressed to the store and that Store Manger Sidenglanz in effect had admitted Cacas did not receive the notices. 10 No evidence was presented that either Wilson or Owens in fact re- membered seeing an envelope addressed to Cacas on the office window- sill , i The description of what was said at the 2 March meeting is based on the testimony of Cacas whose testimonial demeanor was good Cruz testified Cacas stated he did not receive any of the notices addressed to him at the store Cruz did not deny the remarks Cacas attributed to him concerning his telephone conversation with Wilson, nor did he deny that he ended the meeting by stating Respondent intended to make an effort to have Albertson's put Cacas back to work even if it meant going to arbitration Cruz stated he had no idea what happened to the notices when they got to the store but, in his opinion, it was "obvious" Cacas did not receive them. Simonson indicat- ed he would consider rehiring Cacas and would notify Respondent in a few days whether it would do S0.12 On or about 13 March 1987 Cruz notified Cacas that Albertson's did not intend to rehire him. Cruz also in- formed Cacas that Respondent had decided to drop the matter and did not intend to pursue it any further. On 17 March 1987 Cacas filed the unfair labor practice charge in this case. Either in April or May 1987 Cacas went to work as a clerk for Ralph's Grocery in one of its stores located in Santa Ana, California.' 3 The clerks employed by Ralph's Grocery are represented by Respondent and apparently are covered by the same contractual union-security agreement as Albertson's clerks. Cacas quit his employ- ment with Ralph's Grocery after working for approxi- mately 1 month and at the same time moved from Santa Ana, California, to the northern part of California, and approximately 1 or 2 months after having moved re- ceived an "Introductory Letter" from Respondent, which had been forwarded to him from his old address in Santa Ana, California." As I have found supra, Respondent mailed Cacas an Introductory Letter and a Delinquency Notice on or about 26 November 1986 and 31 December 1986, respec- tively. Respondent did not have his home address, so these documents were mailed to him in care of the store where he worked and copies were mailed to the store itself. Cacas testified he did not receive either of these documents and that he first saw them when, as described supra, on 29 January 1987 Respondent's business repre- sentative, Cruz, showed them to him. Respondent con- tends Cacas' testimony is incredible. In evaluating this contention the following evidence is pertinent. After its belated notification on 10 November 1986 from Albertson's of Cacas' employment, Respondent mailed Cacas an Introductory Letter on or about 26 No- vember 1986 and, when he did not comply with that letter, mailed him a Delinquency Notice on or about 31 December 1986. Respondent did not have his home ad- dress, so, as was its practice in such cases, mailed these documents to him in care of the store where he worked and mailed copies to the store itself During the time material Store Manager Sidenglanz normally opened the mail addressed to and received by the store. On occasions when he was busy he did not open the envelopes on which Respondent's logo was printed, but assumed they contained either Introductory Letters or Delinquency Notices and left them unopened in the basket on the desk in the store office used by Ma- delyn Pool, who worked in the store 1 day a week, on 12 The description of the 2 March meetmg is based on the undenied testimony of Cacas, whose testimonial demeanor was good 13 The parties appear to have stipulated that Cacas was hired by Ralph's Grocery on 11 May 1987, however, other record evidence (R Exh 8), indicates he was hired by Ralph's Grocery on 11 Apnl 1987 14 The record reveals that on or about 14 May 1987 Respondent mailed an Introductory Letter to Cacas at his Santa Ana, California ad- dress and on or about 17 June 1987 mailed a "Delinquency Notice" to him at that address FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 324 (ALBERTSON'S) Thursday, doing the store's payroll. Sidenglanz, when it was not busy, normally opened all the envelopes ad- dressed to the store and placed any Introductory Letters or Delinquency Notices in Pool's basket where they re- mained until she came to work on Thursday. The same was the case with unopened envelopes left by Sidenglanz in Pool's basket. On Thursday, Pool took whatever In- troductory Letters and Delinquency Notices were in her basket and attached them to the employees ' paychecks by means of paperclips. The envelopes containing the In- troductory Letters and Delinquency Notices that were not addressed to the store, but to employees in care of the store, were treated differently. Sidenglanz' practice was to leave those envelopes unopened on the window- sill of the store's office for the employees to pick up. There is no evidence that Albertson 's ever informed the employees, either verbally or in writing, that these enve- lopes would be there for them to pick up. Each Thursday, during the time material, Pool pre- pared for distribution the approximately 105 employee paychecks, which between 8 and 8 :30 a.m. were placed by her in alphabetical order in a cardboard box, which she left either upstairs in the store office or downstairs in the store's video room.1 5 The employees, including the night crew, received their paychecks by walking up to the box and removing their checks, after signing for them on a piece of paper that had been left aside of the box. The box with the checks, whether it was located in the store office or in the video room, was not watched by anyone nor were the employees kept under surveil- lance as they removed their checks from it. Although Pool was present in the office when the employees came in to get their paychecks, there is no evidence that she stopped work and watched them remove their paychecks or that she otherwise kept employees under surveillance when they took their checks out of the box. Sidenglanz testified he did not remember seeing Cacas' Introductory Letter or Delinquency Notice or an enve- lope addressed to Cacas. This was consistent with his further testimony that when he was told on 23 January 1987 that Cacas was complaining he had not received either an Introductory Letter or Delinquency Notice from Respondent, that Sidenglanz replied by telling Cacas and Cruz that Sidenglanz had also not seen those documents. Pool testified she was absolutely positive she saw Cacas' 26 November 1986 Introductory Letter and the 31 December 1986 Delinquency Notice which were ad- dressed to the store, and testified she was absolutely positive she paperclipped both of them to Cacas' pay- checks. Pool further testified it was in May 1986 that she started attaching the Introductory Letters and Delin- quency Notices addressed to the store to employees' pay- checks and testified that in the approximately 14 months she has been doing this she has attached approximately 50 such documents to employees' paychecks and to her knowledge no employee has ever complained about not 'a There is a dispute about where the box with the checks was left during the time material. I have not resolved this dispute because it does not affect the outcome of the case. 963 receiving the notices she has attached to their pay- checks.) a The record also reveals that Sidenglanz and Pool on or about 1 April 1987 discovered the copy of the 26 No- vember 1986 Introductory Letter which Pool testified she was absolutely positive she had attached to Cacas' paycheck. The alleged circumstances surrounding this discovery follow. Upstairs in the store, adjacent to the office, are several baskets used by department heads for purposes not revealed by the record . Sidenglanz testified he and Pool discovered Cacas' 26 November 1986 Intro- ductory Letter addressed to the store, while they were looking for a grocery price book that Sidenglanz needed in order to find the price of an item for a customer, and when they could not find the book in the grocery man- ager's basket, where it should have been , they looked in the adjacent basket, the night crew chief's basket, and Si- denglanz found the 26 November 1986 "Introductory Letter" at the bottom of the basket. Pool testified she and Sidenglanz were looking for completed customers' check application cards which were supposed to be in the grocery manager's basket, but found them instead in the night crew chief's basket and , in the process of re- moving the check application cards from that basket, that either herself or Sidenglanz discovered the 26 No- vember 1986 Introductory Letter laying in the basket. As I have found supra, Cacas' last day as night crew chief was Friday, 21 November 1986. Anyone employed at the store has access to the night crew chief's basket as well as the other baskets. Cacas' testimonial demeanor was good when he testi- fied he did not see an envelope addressed to him on the window sill of the store's office and that he never re- ceived copies of the 26 November 1986 Introductory Letter or the 31 December 1986 Delinquency Notice, either attached to his paychecks or by some other means. There is nothing in the way Cacas conducted himself that impugns his testimony. Quite the opposite, at all times he informed Respondent's clerical employees and Respondent's business representative that he had not re- ceived the notices that Respondent had mailed to him in care of the store where he worked . Moreover, no one from Albertson's disputed his complaint that Albertson's had not transmitted Respondent's notices to him. This despite the fact that Cacas and Cruz, Respondent's busi- ness representative, were taking the position in their dealings with Albertson's representatives that Albertson's had failed to transmit the notices to Cacas . Albertson's sole statement concerning this matter was Store Manager 16 Pool's testimony that to her knowledge no one ever complained they did not receive a notice she attached to their paychecks is suspect. As described in detail supra , on or about 23 January 1987 Store Manager Sidenglanz was advised that Cacas was complaining he did not receive an Introductory Letter or a Delinquency Notice. When confronted with Cacas' complaint, Sidenglanz admitted having no recollection of ever seeing either of those documents or an envelope addressed to Cacas. Thereafter, Respondent's business representative Cruz took the position in his dealings with Albertson's representatives that Albertson's should rehire Cacas because Albertson's had failed to transmit to him the Intro- ductory Letter or the Delinquency Notice. Under the circumstances, I find it difficult to believe Pool's testimony that no one from Albertson's brought it to her attention that Cacas was complaining he had not re- ceived a copy of either the Introductory Letter or Delinquency Notice. 964 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sidenglanz' admission to Cacas and Cruz that he did not remember receiving correspondence from Respondent in- volving Cacas or addressed to Cacas. No one including Sidenglanz ever mentioned that Pool remembered having attached the relevant Introductory Letter or Delinquen- cy Notice to Cacas' paychecks. I realize that at the hearing in this proceeding, Pool, a member of Respondent, testified on behalf of Respondent that she was absolutely positive she had seen Cacas' 26 November 1986 Introductory Letter and the 31 Decem- ber 1986 Delinquency Notice addressed to the store, and testified she was absolutely positive she paperclipped both of them to Cacas' paychecks. Pool's testimonial de- meanor was not good when she gave this testimony. Also her testimony is suspect in view of Albertson's fail- ure to notify either Cacas or Business Representative Cruz that Pool, the person who attaches the Introducto- ry Letters and Delinquency Notices to the employees' paychecks, specifically recalled attaching those docu- ments to Cacas' paychecks. 17 This doubt about the reli- ability of Pool's testimony is reinforced by the fact that on or about 1 April 1987, several months after the 26 November 1986 Introductory Letter was supposedly pa- perclipped to Cacas' paycheck by Pool, this letter was allegedly discovered by Pool and Store Manager Sideng- lanz in the night crew chief's basket. I use the term "al- legedly" because the circumstances of the discovery make the testimony of Pool and Sidenglanz suspect. First, Cacas had been replaced as night crew chief on 23 November 1986 and there is no explanation why the 26 November 1986 Introductory Letter would have been placed in the crew chief's basket and there is no explana- tion why Cacas' successor or successors as crew chief would not have discovered this letter and removed it. Second, there was no reason for either Sidenglanz or Pool to be looking for anything in the night crew chief's basket. Third, Pool and Sidenglanz gave different ver- sions of why they happened to be looking in the night crew chiefs basket on or about 1 April 1987 when they discovered the 26 November 1986 Introductory Letter. Fourth, Pool works at the store only 1 day a week, a Thursday, the day she handles the store's payroll, thus for her to have been involved with Sidenglanz in the dis- covery of the letter is a remarkable coincidence. It is for all the foregoing reasons, and particularly Cacas' sincerity when he denied having seen an envelope addressed to him on the windowsill of the store's office and denied receiving the 26 November Introductory Letter or the 31 December Delinquency Notice, that I find Cacas did not receive either of those documents and was not shown them until 29 January 1987 when Cruz brought them to his attention. In so concluding I consid- ered that Pool paperclipped copies of a 19 November 1986 Introductory Letter and a 26 November 1986 Intro- ductory Letter to the paychecks of employees Leichtfuss and Catalfano. I am not persuaded, however, that estab- lishing the Introductory Letters sent to the store con- cerning two other employees were paperclipped by Pool 17 As I have found supra, Cacas and Business Representative Cruz were complaining to Albertson's that Albertson's had not transmitted to Cacas the notices sent to him in care of the store. to their paychecks, warrants the inference that she also affixed Cacas' Introductory Letter or Delinquency Notice to his paychecks. In this regard, I note that the fact Albertson's may have submitted correct social secu- rity numbers to Respondent for employees Leichtfuss and Catalfano does not warrant the inference it submit- ted a correct social security number for Cacas-it in fact did not. Likewise, the fact that Pool paperclipped Leichtfuss' and Catalfano's Introductory Letters to their paychecks does not warrant the inference that, under the circumstances of this case, she also did so in Cacas' case. I have also considered Respondent's contention that Cacas' testimony concerning several other matters was inherently incredible, thus indicating he generally was not a truthful witness, and considered its further conten- tion that because two copies of the 26 November Intro- ductory Letter and two copies of the 31 December De- linquency Notice were mailed by Respondent to the store where Cacas worked, and because under the store's procedure all four of these documents were supposed to be transmitted to Cacas, that the law of probability dic- tates he should have received at least some of those doc- uments. I do not agree that Cacas' testimony referred to by Respondent was inherently incredible in whole or in part. Regarding Respondent's latter contention, I am per- suaded that regardless of the probabilities involved, Cacas did not receive any of the documents in issue for, as I have stated previously, he impressed me as a sincere and conscientious witness when he denied receiving them. I am not prepared to speculate about what hap- pened to those documents: whether all or some of them were not received by the store; whether all or some of them were not left for Cacas on the store office window- sill; whether all or some of them were not paperclipped to his paychecks; whether all or some of them fell off from his paychecks after being paperclipped. All I know is that when Cacas testified he did not see an envelope addressed to him on the store office windowsill and denied ever receiving the documents involved in this case, his testimonial demeanor was good and, under the circumstances of this case, the probabilities of the situa- tion do not make his testimony inherently incredible. B. Discussion A labor organization seeking to enforce a union-securi- ty provision against an employee has a "fiduciary" duty to "deal fairly" with the employee affected. "At a mini- mum this duty requires that the Union inform the em- ployee of his obligations in order that the employee may take whatever action is necessary to protect his job tenure." NLRB v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees Local 568, 320 F.2d 254, 258 (3d Cir 1963). Accord: H. C. Ma- caulay Foundry Co. v. NLRB, 553 F.2d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 1977). In Teamsters Local 122 (Busch & Co.), 203 NLRB 1041, 1042 (1973), the National Labor Relations Board specifically defined the union's duty as including "a statement of the precise amount and months for which dues were owed, as well as an explanation of the method used in computing such amount," plus "an ade- quate opportunity to make payment." In addition, the union must specify when such payments are to be made FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 324 (ALBERTSON'S) and make it clear to the employee that discharge will result from failure to pay. Western Publishing Co., 263 NLRB 1110, 1112 (1982). In the instant case on 23 January 1987 when , pursuant to the provisions of its contractual union-security agree- ment with Albertson's, Respondent sent its request to Al- bertson's to terminate Cacas for his failure to meet his union-security obligations, Respondent had not advised him of the amount of his obligation, nor the method of computation, nor the deadline for such payment, nor clearly stated to Cacas he would be terminated if he did not comply with this obligation .1 8 As described in detail supra, as of that date the only information that Cacas had received from Respondent was Business Representa- tive Cruz' statement that he was required to join Re- spondent as a condition of employment and to telephone the Respondent's office to learn the details of this obliga- tion. However, when Cacas, pursuant to Cruz' instruc- tion, telephoned Respondent's office during the first week of January 1987 in an effort to learn more about his union-security obligation, he was not given any addi- tional information, but advised he would be receiving a notice from Respondent that would explain everything he needed to know. In other words, when Respondent on 23 January 1987 requested Albertson's to comply with the contractual union-security clause and terminate Cacas for nonpayment of dues and an initiation fee, it had not furnished Cacas with any of the information the Board has found necessary to a union 's fiduciary duty to deal fairly with an employee in enforcing a contractual union-security clause. t 9 The record also reveals that as a result of Respondent's 23 January 1987 termination re- quest, on 30 January 1987 Albertson's discharged Cacas. In view of these circumstances , I find Respondent violat- ed Section 8(b)(2) and (1XA) of the Act, by attempting to cause and causing Albertson's to terminate Cacas. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By attempting to cause and causing Albertson 's to dis- charge John M. Cacas on 30 January 1987, the Respond- ent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (IXA) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 'S As described in detail supra, Respondent attempted to notify Cacas of his contractual union-security obligation by sending the above-de- scribed 26 November 1986 Introductory Letter and the above-described 31 December 1986 Delinquency Notice to him in care of the store where he worked. However, as I have found supra, Cacas did not receive them and did not receive the copies that had been mailed to the store and al- legedly paperclipped to his paychecks. 19 The fact that Cacas on or about 22 January 1987 did not visit Re- spondent's office in response to Cruz' request and thereafter failed to visit the office until Thursday, 29 January 1987, to find out about his union- security obligation, does not establish he was acting in bad faith or was willfully and deliberately attempting to avoid meeting his union-security obligation. Caces did make an effort to visit Respondent's office on or about 22 January 1987, pursuant to Cruz' instruction, but was not able to get there until after it had closed because he did not own an automobile and it was not until his aunt, who he lived with, got home from work that he was able to use her automobile to drive to Respondent's office. The reason Cacas did not return to Respondent's office until Thursday, 29 January, was he waited until his aunt had a day off so he could use her automobile and he intended to use some of the money from his pay- check, Thursday was payday, to meet his union-security obligation. 965 REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(bX2) and (1)(A) of the Act, I shall order it to cease and desist from engaging in such activity and to take certain affirm- ative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent caused Albertson's, Inc., to unlawfully discharge John M. Cacas, I shall order that Respondent notify Albertson's, Inc. in writing, with a copy to Cacas, that it has no objection to the re- instatement of Cacas, and that it requests Cacas be rein- stated. The Respondent shall be ordered to make Cacas whole for any loss of wages and benefits he may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's action until Cacas has been reinstated by Albertson's, Inc., to his former or substantially equivalent job, or he obtains sub- stantially equivalent employment elsewhere, less his net interim earnings.20 The amount of backpay shall be com- puted in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Ca, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as provided for in New Horizonsfor the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed2 1 ORDER The Respondent, United Food and Commercial Work- ers, Local 324, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Santa Ana, Cali- fornia, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Causing or attempting to cause Albertson's, Inc. to discriminate against any of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employ- ment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Make whole John M. Cacas for any loss of wages or other rights and benefits he may have suffered as the result of its discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy of this decision. (b) Notify Albertson's, Inc. in writing with a copy to John M. Cacas that it has no objection to the employ- ment of John M. Cacas, and it requests that Cacas be re- instated. (c) Remove from its records any reference to the un- lawful discharge of John M. Cacas and notify him in writing that this has been done and that evidence of his unlawful discharge shall not be used as a basis for future action against him. ao Sheet Metal Workers Local 355 (Zinsco Electrical Products), 254 NLRB 773 (1981). 21 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. 966 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) Post in conspicuous places, at its business office and meeting hall, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."22 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt. Once posted, these notices shall remain posted for 60 consecutive days. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 21 signed copies of the notice in sufficient numbers to be posted by Albertson's, Inc. in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted, if it is willing. Ask the Employer to remove any reference to Cacas' unlawful discharge from the Employer's files and notify Cacas that it has asked the Employer to do this. (f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. YII 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 Enfoicing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Albertson's, Inc. to discriminate against John M. Cacas or any other employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that those rights may be abrogated by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. WE WILL make whole John M. Cacas for any loss of wages or other rights and benefits he may have suffered by reason of our discrimination practiced against him, with interest, until he has been reinstated by Albertson's, Inc. or obtains substantially equivalent employment else- where. WE WILL notify Albertson's, Inc. in writing with a copy to John M. Cacas that we have no objection to the reinstatement of John M. Cacas and we request that he be reinstated. WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the discharge of John M. Cacas and notify him in writing that this has been done and that evidence of this unlaw- ful discharge will not be used as a basis for future action against him and WE WILL ask the Employer to remove any reference to Cacas' unlawful discharge from its files and will notify Cacas that we have asked the Employer to do this. NOTICE To M EMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORK- ERS LOCAL 324, UNITED FOOD AND COM- MERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC 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.