Ord-Man'S Park & Shop

ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP 953 Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ord- man's Park & Shop and United Food and Com- mercial Workers Union, Locals 1540 and 1453, United Food and Commercial Workers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and United Food and Commercial Workers Union , Local 1540, United Food and Commercial Workers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO Metro Resource Investments, Inc and United Food and Commercial Workers Union , Local 1540, United Food and Commercial Workers Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO Cases 13-CA-26234, 13-CA-26236, and 13-CA-26235 February 10, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, CRACRAFr, AND HIGGINS On July 14, 1987, Administrative Law Judge Leonard M Wagman issued the attached decision The Respondents filed exceptions Respondents Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation and Karat jas Family Lemont Corporation, d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop, also filed a supporting brief I The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions as modified below, and to adopt the recommended Order as modified The judge found that Respondents Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation and Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by ordering Local 1540's and Local 1453's peaceful pickets to move away from public areas adjacent to their grocery stores, and by threatening them with arrest if they did not leave The judge further found that the Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation unlawfully caused the police to move the pickets away from areas adjacent to its Lemont store to remote areas at the entrance to the shop- ping center He also found Respondent Metro Re- source Investments, Inc, owner of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, violated Section 8(a)(1) by ordering the pickets not to engage in peaceful pick- eting and handbilling in the public areas in front of the Karatjas Family Lemont store and by request- ing the police to prohibit Local 1540 from picket- 1 The General Counsel filed a motion to make the General Counsels brief to the judge part of the record and Respondents Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation and Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation filed a motion to strike the final paragraph of the General Counsel s motion The General Counsels motion to include the brief to the judge in the record is granted The Respondents motion to strike is denied ing or handbilling in the public areas of its Lemont Plaza Shopping Center Finally, the judge found that the Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation violated Section 8(a)(1) by creating the impression of surveillance of employees' exercising their Sec- tion 7 rights by photographing Local 1453's and Local 1540's pickets With the exception of the judge's finding that Respondent Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation violated Section 8(a)(1) by creating the impression of surveillance by photo- graphing pickets, we affirm the judge's findings We do so, however, only for the reasons set forth below The facts are as follows Both the Lemont and Lockport Park & Shop stores were, until April 6, 1986, owned by corporations of which Abe Ordman was president On that date, George and Rita Karatjas, who own and control the Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation and the Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation, took over owner- ship and operation of the Ordman's Park & Shop stores A third Ordman's Park & Shop store, locat- ed in Mokena, was also purchased by the Karatjas family, but activities at that store are not at issue in this proceeding The employees of all three Ordman's Park & Shop stores were terminated by Ordman effective April 6, 1986 2 The Karatjas Family Lockport Cor- poration hired a majority of the former employees of Ordman at the Lockport store, but a majority of the employees of the Lemont and Mokena stores were hired from sources other than the Ordman's Park & Shop stores Local 1540, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, had represented the retail clerks at the Lemont store for many years, and Local 1453 of that union had represented the clerks at the Mokena store, but the retail employ- ees at the Lockport store had been unrepresented In March 1986, prior to the effective date of the sale, the Karatjas met with Locals 1540 and 1453 and refused to recognize the Unions as collective- bargaining representatives at any of the three stores I LEMONT PARK & SHOP STORE On April 7, the first day of operation under the new ownership, Local 1540 began picketing and handbilling at the Lemont store A description of the Lemont Park & Shop store, located in the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, is fully set forth in the judge's decision Briefly, the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center is a strip shopping center approxi mately 950 feet long fronting on State Street, where it has two entrances about 100 yards apart 2 Unless otherwise indicated all dates are 1986 292 NLRB No 92 954 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Between these entrances is a grassy area, but no sidewalk. State Street is approximately 280 feet from the entrance to Ordman's Park & Shop, and the shopping center has an extensive parking area available to the Ordman's Park & Shop customers and to customers of Walgreen's and other shopping center.stores. The Lemont Ordman's Park & Shop store shares a sidewalk with a row of shopping center stores. On April 7, Union Representative George Holtshlag and five or six former Ordman's employ- ees stationed themselves in front of the store be- tween the two front doors. Two pickets stood 5 or 6 feet in front of each door, and the remainder pa- trolled the 40 yards separating the two doors. The picket signs stated: Please do not patronize Ordman's Park-N- Shop. Does not have a contract with or employ members of UFCW Local 1540, AFL- CIO, CLC. Handbills distributed by the pickets asked potential customers not to patronize Ordman's Park & Shop and to support the Union's boycott. The handbills further stated that the employees lost their jobs and benefits when the new owner took over, and that the pickets wanted their jobs back. One handbill stated that the pickets were not considered for their former jobs because they belong to the Union.3 Examples of the handbills are included verbatim in the judge's decision. The Lemont Ordman's Park & Shop store man- ager came out and warned the pickets that he would call the police and have them arrested for trespassing if they did not move to the edge of the shopping center. The police were called, and the police chief advised Holtshlag that he had a letter from Metro, the shopping center owner, which he regarded as a signed complaint, and said that he would arrest the pickets if they did not leave. The police chief told the pickets to limit their picketing to the State Street driveway entrances that are di- rectly in front of the store. The pickets complied, and moved to the grassy area between the two en- trances. The police chief subsequently imposed additional safety restrictions on the pickets-they were not permitted to walk across the driveways, or to offer handbills at the edge of the grassy strip or along driveway entrances. Instead, they had to hold their picket signs and stand in the grassy area offering 9 The Unions filed unfair labor practice charges alleging that the Re- spondents' refusal to hire former Ordman employees violated the Act when the picketing began, but the Regional Director dismissed the charges on evidentiary grounds on May 21. The General Counsel on September 5 denied the Unions' appeal of the dismissals. handbills only to drivers who came for one after parking their cars. The police chief also prohibited Local 1540 from putting handbills on automobiles parked in the shopping center. Metro permits organizations to use its premises for charitable and civic purposes, and also allows the Lemont Corporation to grant or deny permis- sion to use the premises on which the Ordman's Park & Shop is situated. During the time the Union was picketing, school cheerleaders conducted try- outs on the sidewalk near the north entrance to the store, attracting an audience in the parking lot. The cheerleaders also conducted a bake sale on the sidewalk on another occasion. A table was set up approximately in the middle between the store's two doors, and cheerleaders stood at each door selling baked goods. The Lions Club sold candy at the store entrances during that time period as well. There is no evidence of restrictions on access to the sidewalk other than in such extraordinary cir- cumstances as drunk or disorderly conduct or har- assing of customers. There is also testimony that Rita Karatjas called the police on one occasion in connection with loitering, but the record contains no details of the circumstances or timing of this in- cident. Metro permitted the Lemont Jaycees, Lemont Chamber of Commerce, and other groups to use retail space, the parking lot, and other portions of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center for various ac- tivities during 1986. The Lemont Hornets Youth Football Association conducted a car wash be- tween 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. on 4 days between April and August, and a Lutheran Church was given permission to use the parking lot for a car wash on three dates during that same time period. The record contains letters granting individuals the same privilege on various dates in 1986. At the time of the hearing in late January 1987, the Union continued to picket and handbill in the grassy area between the two parking lot entrances at the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center. II. LOCKPORT PARK & SHOP STORE Locals 1540 and 1453 began picketing and hand- billing at the Lockport Ordman's Park & Shop store in July 1986. The Lockport store is located in the Summit Plaza Shopping Center, a strip shop- ping center fronting on Summit Drive. The shop- ping center is approximately 900-feet long, with a K-Mart at one end and the Ordman's Park & Shop store at the other. There are three entrances to the parking lot off Summit Drive, two of which are in front of and approximately 200 feet from the en- trance to the Park & Shop store. A common side- walk extends from Ordman's Park & Shop to the ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP K-Mart, and a parking area is shared by these and four other stores On July 7 some former employees of the Lemont Ordman's Park & Shop store and paid pickets began picketing and handbilling on the sidewalk immediately in front of the Lockport store Pickets walked between the store's two front doors, which are 20 to 25 yards apart, and others handbilled near the doors The handbills and picket signs were similar to those used at Lemont Rita and George Karatjas ordered the pickets to move to an area at the perimeter of the shopping center, and the store manager threatened the pick- ets with arrest if they did not move Both of the Karatjas and the store manager took photographs of the pickets on the sidewalk in front of the store on several occasions during July The shopping center lessor also participated in having the pickets removed from the entrances to the Lockport Park & Shop The lessor requested the police to remove the pickets, and the Lockport police finally ordered the pickets to leave the side- walk The pickets then moved to the perimeter of the property near the drive entrances and stood on the sides of the entrances A complaint alleging that the lessor also violated Section 8(a)(1) issued, but a settlement agreement with the lessor was ap- proved prior to the hearing in this proceeding Under the terms of that agreement, the pickets were allowed to return to the sidewalk fronting the Lockport Ordman's Park & Shop store and have been picketing and handbilling there since Decem- ber 1986 The Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation had the same policy as the Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation for allowing civic organizations to engage in activities outside its Lockport Store Ac- cording to Rita Karatjas, the organization generally would call the store manager and ask if they could be there, and the manager would grant permission, giving preference to those who had accounts with the store, if someone else had not already sched- uled that time The parties stipulated that Locals 1540 and 1453 have not attempted to organize either Corpora- tion's employees, or sought recognition None of the pickets were employees of any of the Respond ents The judge applied the analysis set forth by the Board in Fairmont Hotel, 282 NLRB 139 (1986), and concluded that the pickets here asserted an im- portant Section 7 interest that substantially out- weighed the Respondents' relatively weak property interests He therefore found that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by denying the Unions the use of the sidewalks in front of both the 955 Lemont Corporation's Park & Shop and the Lock port Corporation's Park & Shop stores, as well as public areas of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center We agree with the judge that the Respondents vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) through their denial of access to the Unions, but reach that conclusion because of their disparate treatment of protected union activi- ty rather than on the basis of an accommodation of competing interests In Jean Country, 291 NLRB 11 (1988), we re cently reexamined and clarified our analytical ap- proach in access cases In so doing, however, we noted that we continue to adhere to the distinct an- alytical view that a denial of access for Section 7 activity may constitute unlawful disparate treat- ment when a property owner permits similar activi- ty in similar, relevant circumstances Jean Country, supra at fn 3 This approach is based on the Su preme Court's opinion in NLRB v Babcock & Wilcox Co, 351 U S 105, 112 (1956),4 as reiterated by that Court in Sears, Roebuck & Co v San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, 436 U S 180, 205 (1978), as follows To gain access, the union has the burden of showing that no other reasonable means of communicating its organizational message to the employees exists or that the employer's access rules discriminate against union solicita- tion [fn omitted] See also Providence Hospital, 285 NLRB 320, 322, (1987), in which the Board noted that the Fairmont decision addressed only the "reasonable alternative means" prong of this disjunctive test Here, the Respondents' access policies clearly discriminated against union activity, for Respond- ents Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation and Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation admittedly allowed other organizations to use the very side walks and store entrances for solicitation that the Unions were prohibited from using At the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, the record showed exten sive use of the facilities by charitable, civic, and other organizations, and Rita Karatjas testified that the Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation and the Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation permit civic organizations to engage in activities outside their stores at both Lemont and Lockport In addi tion, Respondent Metro permitted use of the public 4 The Court there set forth the following test It is our judgment that an employer may validly post his prop erty against nonemployee distribution of union literature if reasona ble efforts by the union through other available channels of commit mcation will enable it to reach the employees with its message and if the employers notice or order does not discriminate against the union by allowing other distribution 956 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD areas of its Lemont Plaza Shopping Center to civic organizations, churches, and apparently even indi- viduals, for a broad range of activities, while deny ing the Union the use of the same premises for handbilling and picketing purposes Under these circumstances, we find that the Respondents' con- duct constituted unlawful disparate treatment of protected union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 5 Accordingly, we shall modify the judge's recommended Order to reflect the dis- criminatory nature of these violations Finally, we disagree with the judge's conclusion that the Lockport Corporation engaged in surveil lance violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when its agents on three occasions photographed nonem- ployee pickets on the sidewalk in front of the Lockport store It is undisputed that during the course of the picketing Respondents took photo graphs of nonemployee, paid pickets in order to preserve evidence of alleged trespass The Board has held that where photographs are taken for the purpose of gathering evidence, and there is no showing of coercion of the employees, such photo graphing is not unlawful Roadway Express, 271 NLRB 1238 (1984) The Board has also held that taking pictures of union representatives' handbilling of a company's employees on its own property, in which the company called the police because of the trespass on its property and in which the union engaged in the activity on more than one occasion, did not constitute unlawful surveillance Berton Kirshner Inc, 209 NLRB 1081 (1974), enfd 523 F 2d 1046 (9th Cir 1975) In this instance, in which there was no photographing of any of the Re- spondents' employees, but only of nonemployee, paid pickets whose message was aimed at consum- ers and not at the Respondents employees, and in which the photographs were taken in order to secure evidence of alleged trespassory activities6 and without any evidence of coercion of the Re spondents' employees, we cannot conclude that the Respondent Lockport Corporation engaged in un- lawful surveillance Accordingly, we shall dismiss this portion of the complaint ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that 5 We therefore find it unnecessary to engage in an accommodation analysis of the Sec 7 and property rights 6In Waco Inc 273 NLRB 746 (1984) relied on by the judge in find mg the photographing unlawful the picketing at issue occurred at or near the entrance to the Respondents premises there was no allegation that the pickets were unlawfully on the respondents property as there was here and the photographing there was not properly justified A The Respondent, Metro Resource Invest- ments, Inc, Hinsdale, Illinois, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified 1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a) "(a) Discnminatonly ordering United Food and Commercial Workers Union , Local 1540 or any other labor organization not to engage in peaceful picketing and handbilling in the public areas adja cent to Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation's Ordman's Park & Shop store in the Lemont Shop ping Plaza, Lemont, Illinois, in protest of Respond ent Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation 's failure to hire former employees of Ordman's Park & Shop stores " 2 Substitute the attached Appendix B for that of the administrative law judge B The Respondent, Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop, Lemont, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified 1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a) "(a) Discrimmatonly threatening to cause the arrest, causing the arrest, or attempting to cause the arrest of any employee, or of any representa tive of United Food and Commercial Workers' International Union, Local 1540, AFL-CIO, CLC, while they are peacefully picketing and handbilling on public areas adjacent to the Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation's Park and Shop store at the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center , Lemont, Illinois, in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Corpora- tion's failure to hire former Ordman 's Park & Shop employees " 2 Substitute the attached Appendix C for that of the administrative law judge C The Respondent , Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop, Lock- port, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and as signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified 1 Delete paragraph 1(a) and reletter the subse- quent paragraphs 2 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b) "(a) Discriminatorily ordering employees, or any representative of Local 1540, Local 1453, or of any other labor organization , who are peacefully pick eting or handbilling in protest of the Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation's failure to hire former employees of Ordman 's Park & Shop stores at Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation's Park & Shop, to move from the public area adjacent to the Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation 's Park & Shop store to the perimeter of the Summit Plaza Shopping Center " ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP 3 Substitute the attached Appendix D for that of the administrative law judge APPENDIX B 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 Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities WE WILL NOT discnminatonly order United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1540, United Food and Commercial Workers Internation- al Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other labor or- ganization, not to engage in peaceful picketing and handbilling in the public areas adjacent to Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop store in the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, Lemont, Illinois, in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation's failure to hire former employees of Ordman's Park & Shop stores WE WILL NOT advise or request the Lemont, Illi- nois Police Department to prohibit any employees or any representative of United Food and Com- mercial Workers Union, Local 1540, or of any other labor organization, from picketing or hand- billing peacefully in the public area of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation's failure to hire former employees of Ordman's Park & Shop stores 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 METRO RESOURCE INVESTMENTS INC APPENDIX C NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 957 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 Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities WE WILL NOT discrimmatonly threaten to cause the arrest, cause the arrest, or attempt to cause the arrest, of any employee, or of any representative of United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1540, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, while they are peacefully picketing and handbilling on public areas adjacent to Karatjas Family Lemont Corpo- ration d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop store, at the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, Lemont, Illinois, in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Corpora tion's failure to hire former Ordman's Park & Shop employees WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the Lemont, Illinois Police Department to remove em- ployees, or representatives of Local 1540 or of any other labor organization from public areas adjacent to Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop store, to the perimeter of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, while they are peacefully picketing and handbilling in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation's failure to hire former Ordman's Park & Shop employees 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 KARATJAS FAMILY LEMONT CORPO- RATION D/B/A ORDMAN'S PARK & SHOP 958 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX D 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. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. WE WILL NOT discriminatorily order employees, or any representative of United Food and Com- mercial Workers Union Locals 1540 and 1453, United Food and Commercial Workers Internation- al Union AFL-CIO, CLC, or of any other labor organization, who are peacefully picketing or hand- billing in protest of Karatjas Family Lockport Cor- poration's failure to hire former employees of Ord- man's Park & Shop stores at Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop, to move from the public area adjacent to Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ord- man's Park & Shop store to the perimeter of the Summit Plaza Shopping Center or threaten such pickets with arrest for trespassing if they do not do SO. 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. KARATJAS FAMILY LOCKPORT COR- PORATION D/B/A ORDMAN'S PARK & SHOP Linda McCormick and Douchon Pouritch, Esqs., for the General Counsel. Donald F. Peters Jr., Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, for Re- spondent Metro Resource Investments, Inc. Steven D. Erf, Esq. (McDermott, Will & Emery), of Chica- go, Illinois, for Respondents Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation and Karatjas Family Lemont Corpora- tion. Jairus Gilden, Esq. (Karmel and Rosenfeld), of Chicago, Illinois, for the Charging Parties. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge. On a charge filed on 29 August 19861 by the Union, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Locals 1540 and 1453, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (individually Local 1540 and Local 1453), respectively, in Case 13- CA-26234, a first amended charge filed by Locals 1540 and 1453 on 8 September, a charge in Case 13-CA- 26235, filed on 29 August by Local 1540, a charge in Case 13-CA-26236, filed by Local 1540 on 29 August, and a first amended charge in Case 13-CA-25236, filed by Local 1540 on 8 September, the Regional Director for Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board), issued an amended consolidated complaint and notice of hearing on 26 November, alleging that the Respondents, Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop, Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop, and Metro Resource Investments, Inc. (the Lockport Corporation); the Lemont Corporation and Metro had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by interfering with Local 1540's and Local 1453's informa- tional picketing and handbilling at the Lockport Corpo- ration's Ordman's Park & Shop store at Lockport, Illi- nois, and at the Lemont Corporation's Ordman's Park & Shop at Lemont, Illinois. The Lockport Corporation, the Lemont Corporation, and Metro, by their timely an- swers, denied commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. On the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses' demeanor at the hearing, and after due consid- eration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Locals 1540 and 1453, and by the Lockport and the Lemont corporations, 2 I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS The Lockport. Corporation operates a retail grocery store at Lockport, Illinois. The Lemont Corporation op- erates a retail grocery store at Lemont, Illinois. During the past calendar or fiscal year, a representative period, the Lockport Corporation and the Lemont Corporation, respectively, derived gross revenues exceeding $500,000 from their retail sales. During the same period, the Lock- port Corporation and the Lemont Corporation, respec- tively, purchased and received at their respective stores products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Illinois. The Lockport Corporation and the Lemont Corporation admit, and I find, from the foregoing data, that each of them has been, at all times material, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. ' Unless otherwise stated, all dates referred to in this decision occurred in 1986. 2 The Lockport Corporation's and the Lemont Corporation's motion to correct the record is granted . "Appendix A" of this decision, which con- tains the corrections recited in the motion, is omitted from publication. ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP At all times material, Metro, a corporation with an of facial office and place of business at Hinsdale, Illinois, has engaged in the leasing and management of commercial real estate Metro admits, and I find, that during the past calendar or fiscal year, a representative period, Metro re ceived gross receipts exceeding $100 000 from its leasing and management operations, of which amount $25 000 was derived from Walgreen s, an employer directly en gaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act Metro admits, and I find from the foregoing data that it is, and has been at all times material, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act Local 1453 and Local 1540, respectively, are, and have been at all times material, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A The Facts3 1 The change of owners at Ordman s Lemont, Lockport, and Mokena stores Prior to 6 April, three corporations of which Abe Ordman was president, owned and operated three Ord man s Park & Shop retail grocery stores situated, respec tively, in shopping centers at Lockport, Lemont, and Mokena, Illinois By the date, Local 1540 had represent ed the retail clerks at Ordman's Lemont store for pur poses of collective bargaining for 25 to 30 years As of 4 April, Local 1453 had represented the retail clerks at Ordman s Mokena Park & Shop store for approximately the same amount of time In a letter to the three stores employees dated 5 March Ordman announced the sale of the three Park & Shop stores, effective on 6 April, and the termination of all employees of the three stores, also effective 6 April On 20 March, George and Rita Karatjas, who owned and controlled the Lockport Corporation and the Lemont Corporation, and the Karatjas Family Mokena Corporation d/b/a Ordman s Park & Shop store, met with representatives of Locals 1540 and 1453 George Karatjas refused to recognize them as collective bargain ing representative for any of the three stores The Locals also inquired about the prospects of the Mokena store employees for rehiring on 6 April George replied that a committee would make hiring decisions Two of the Local s officials warned George that they would see him on 6 April On 4 April Ordman accomplished the contemplated sale of the three Park & Shop stores The new owners took possession of the three stores on 6 April and began operating on 7 April Neither Local 1543 nor Local 1540 has attempted to organize either the Lemont Corporations or the Lock port Corporation's employees Neither Local 1453 nor Local 1540 has sought recognition from these corpora tions as collective bargaining representative of any of their employees Of the three stores, only the Lockport Corporation's Park & Shop began operations on 7 April 3 The essential facts in these cases are undisputed 959 with most of its employee complement drawn from its predecessors employees Mokena and the Lemont Cor poration drew the bulk of their employees from other sources The Karatjas Family Mokena Corporation hired 12 out of approximately 40 former Ordman employees Respondent Lemont Corporation hired 7 of the 35 to 45 former Ordman employees, numbering 35 to 45 2 The picketing and handbilling at Lemont The Lemont Corporation operates its Park & Shop store, under a lease, at the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center which Metro owns and operates I find from the parties' stipulation that the following is an accurate de scription of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center Lemont Plaza Shopping Center is a strip shopping center approximately 950 feet long The shopping plaza fronts on State Street, a two lane road with a shoulder on each side which is the main street of Lemont It is the principal accessway to Interstate 55 and Route 171, major thoroughfares to and from Lemont The speed limit is 25 miles per hour going south, and 30 miles per hour going north, and there is no stoplight at the shopping center The other side of State Street contains a cemetery At State Street, there are two entrances to the parking lot about 100 yards apart Between these entrances, there is a grassy area but no sidewaik There are two other entrances to the parking lot On the north there is Wiemar Street and on the south Ro berta Street These are both local roads with mini mal traffic State Street is approximately 280 feet from the entrance to Ordman s The parties also stipulated, and I find, that the town of Lemont's population as of 1983 was about 5600 with 2037 housing units Lemont Plaza Shopping Center has an extensive parking area available to the Lemont Cor poration's Park & Shop customers and to the customers of Walgreen s and the other shopping center stores There was no evidence of restrctions on parking or access to the sidewalk in front of the Lemont Corpora tion s Park & Shop which it shares in common with a row of shopping center stores In exceptional circum stances involving drunk or disorderly individuals or per sons harassing customers the Lemont Corporation has sought police assistance in removing the offenders from the sidewalk near its store About 31 March Local 1540 notified the tenants of Lemont Plaza of its intent to engage in informational picketing at that location Local 1540 also stated that it would direct its picketing at Park & Shop for refusing to hire union members In quick response to Local 1540 s announcement, Metro, on or about 2 April, ordered Local 1540 to re frain from informational picketing and handbillmg in public areas in front of the Lemont Corporations Park & Shop at the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center The perti nent text of Metro's letter was as follows Please be advised that it is the owner s policy not to allow demonstrations or solicitations of any type 960 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which would hinder our tenants daily business or obstruct pedestrian traffic either entering or leaving the LEMONT PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER property Please confine your picketing to the grass park way area at the easternmost portion of the Plaza parking lot, fronting State Street We will not allow picketing activity outside that area and appreciate your cooperation Thank you Also, on or about 2 April, Metro asked the Chief of the Lemont Police Department, in conversation, and by letter, to prevent Local 1540 from picketing or handbill ing on the Lemont Shopping Plaza property After refer ring to its letter to Local 1540, Metro s request to the police chief was as follows Pursuant to our conversation of 4-2-86 it is the owner s desire not to allow solicitation or demon stration on the LEMONT PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER property As we have discussed, it may be best to allow this type of activity on the grass area in between the Plaza parking lot and State Street But in no way allow pedestrian traffic to be ob structed either entering or leaving the Plaza UNFAIR! PLEASE DO NOT PATRONIZE THE ORDMAN S PARK AND SHOP STORES We all lost our wages, insurance, retirement, va cation and seniority without receiving the common courtesy of being considered for our former jobs On April 6, 1986 the new owners terminated us and hired new non union employees without consider ing our many past years of loyal service We were not considered for our former jobs solely because we belong to the Union We ask that our friends and community do not shop at ORDMAN S PARK AND SHOP STORES WE WANT OUR JOBS BACKI Thanks for your support, FORMER EMPLOYEES OF ORDMAN S PARK AND SHOP STORES In contrast to its treatment of Local 1540, Metro, in 1986, repeatedly permitted organizations to use its prem ises for charitable and civic purposes In 1986 on 4 days, between 8 a in and 2 p in each day Metro permitted the Lemont Hornets Youth Football Association to wash cars on the Lemont Plaza s parking lot On three other dates in 1986, Metro accorded the same privilege to a Lutheran Church Metro also permitted the Lemont Jay cees, and the Lemont Chamber of Commerce and other groups to use retail space the parking lot and other por tions of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center property for various other activities during 1986 On 7 April Local 1540 began informational picketing and handbilling at the Lemont Corporations Stop & Shop store at the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center 4 Local 1540 s representative, George Holtshlag and five or six former Ordman employees stationed themselves in front of the store, on the sidewalk between its two front doors Two pickets stood 5 or 6 feet in front of each of the two front doors Holtshlag and the remaining two or three packets walked back and forth over the 40 yards separating the two doors with picket signs The follow ing are examples of the handbills which Local 1540 and the supporters distributed at the Lemont Corporation s Park & Shop store ° Local 1453 began handbilling and picketing at Karatlas Family Mokena Corporation s Ordman s Park & Shop store on 7 April Howev er there are no allegations in the complaint regarding the Mokena store Accordingly I have focused my attention on the Lemont and Lockport stores DEAR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS PLEASEI SUPPORT THE BOYCOTT WE LOST OUR JOBS-OUR BENEFITS WHEN THE NEW OWNER TOOK OVER YOU CAN HELP BY NOT SHOPPING AT ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT FORMER ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP EMPLOYEES ORDMAN S DOES NOT EMPLOY MEMBERS OF LOCAL 540 UFCW OR HAVE A CONTRACT WITH LOCAL 1540 UFCW AFL-CIO The signs which the Lemont pickets carried read Please do not patronize Ordman's Park N Shop Does not have a contract with or employ members of UFCW Local 1540, AFL-CIO CLC Approximately 5 minutes after the picketing and hand billing had begun the Lemont Corporation' s store man alter Jack Jaglowski came out of the store and warned the pickets Jaglowski declared that he would call the police and have the pickets arrested for trespassing unless they removed their picketing and handbilling to the edge of the shopping center Holtshlag answered that he and the other pickets would not leave because Jag lowski was not the owner of the property ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP 961 I find also that on 7 April the Lemont Corporation, acting through Jerry Siwmski, asked the local police to remove Local 1540 s pickets from its Lemont Plaza store and limit them to the edge of the shopping center Approximately 10 minutes after the Jaglowski Holtsh lag confrontation, the local police chief approached Holtshlag and the other pickets The Lemont police chief stated that he had a letter from Metro which he in terpreted as a signed complaint, and that he would arrest them for trespassing if they did not leave The chief ad vised the pickets to limit their picketing to the driveway entrances at State Street, which are directly in front of the Lemont Corporations Park & Shop store The pickets immediately complied Holtshlag and the rest of the pickets confined their handbilling and picket ing to the two State Street driveway entrances and the grassy area between the two entrances for remainder of 7 April, and the following day or two One or two days after removing the pickets to the State Street driveway entrances and the grassy area be tween them, the police chief imposed new strictures He prohibited the pickets from walking across the drive ways Instead, the pickets could carry picket signs on the grassy area and stand on either side of the driveway of fenng handbills to passing automobiles The pickets coin plied, with the result that a driver interested in obtaining handbills would stop alongside the grassy area and block traffic, as he or she reached through the passengers side of his or her automobile Approximately 2 days after these restrictions went into effect, the Lemont police chief complained to Holtshlag that Local 1540 s handbill ing was causing a traffic hazard The chief next directed Holtshlag to stop offering handbills at the edge of the grassy strips or along drive way entrances The chief allowed the pickets to hold up picket signs and to stand in the grassy area offering handbills only to drivers and passengers who came to them after parking their cars During the ensuing 6 weeks, Holtshlag who was at the Lemont picketing site 6 days per week, during that period, observed that only one or two drivers per day would park and walk to the grassy area beyond the parking lot to obtain a leaflet After mid June, Local 1540 s rate of handbill distribution on the grassy area diminished to about one per week At one of his meetings with Holtshlag the Lemont police chief prohibited Local 1540 from putting handbills on automobiles parked in the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center At the time of the hearing in these cases, Local 1540 was picketing and handbilling under these same conditions Metro allows the Lemont Corporation to grant or deny permission to the public to use the premises on which the Lemont Corporations Ordman s Park & Shop store is situated During a weekend at the end of August, or at the beginning of September, a group of school cheerleaders conducted tryouts on the sidewalk, a short distance from the entrance to the Lemont Corporation's store Their activity attracted an audience in the parking lot The following weekend, this same group conducted a bake sale, on the same sidewalk, in front of the Lemont Corporations store entrance In early September the Lions Club sold candy at the same store entrance 3 The picketing and handbillmg at Lockport The Lockport Corporation leases its Lockport Park & Shop store at Summit Plaza, a shopping center owned and operated by National Property Analysts, Inc I find from the parties stipulation that the following is an accu rate description of the Summit Plaza Shopping Center Summit Plaza Shopping Center is a strip shopping center fronting on Summit Drive, a two lane street perpendicular to Illinois Route 7, a heavily travelled road The shopping center is approximately 900 feet long A K Mart is at the north end of the shopping center and Ordman s is at the south end There are three entrances to the parking lot off of Summit Drive, two of which are in front of Ordman s and are approximately 200 feet from the entrance to Ordman s There is no sidewalk between the three entrances to the parking lot off of Summit Drive There are no traffic signals at the shopping center Lockport is a town of about 9170 inhabitants and has 3439 housing units The speed limit on Summit Drive is approximately 25 miles per hour and the speed limit on Illinois Route 7 is 35 miles per hour There is a church on the other side of Summit Drive An airphoto shows a fourth entrance at the shopping center s north end, near the K Mart store Another, closer airphoto reveals a common sidewalk, extending from Ordman's Park & Shop to the K Mart store and a large parking area shared by Park & Shop, K Mart, and four other stores There was no showing of any restnc tions of public access to the shopping center and its parking lot Occasionally, the Lockport Corporation has requested police assistance in removing from the side walk adjacent to its store persons who were drunk, dis orderly, or harassing customers On 7 July, Locals 1540 and 1453 began picketing and handbilling at the Lockport Corporations Park & Shop store, at the Summit Plaza Shopping Center Some former employees of Ordman's Lemont Park & Shop and paid pickets participated in the handbilling and picketing on the sidewalk immediately in front of the Lockport Corporations Park & Shop Some of the pickets walked between the store s two entrance doors which were 20 or 25 yards apart Others handbilled near the doors The handbills and picket signs that the pickets displayed at Lockport were similar in content to those which the pickets used at Lemont The Lockport Corporation with help from the lessor, repeatedly attempted to dislodge the pickets On 7 July, Karatjas photographed former Ordman employee Dan Sopher who was picketing at the time and three other pickets, one of whom was also a former Ordman em ployee,5 as they stood in the public area, in front of the Lockport Park & Shop, between the two doors About 8 July, National Property Analyst Inc by letter asked the Lockport chief of police to remove the pickets from the entrances to the Lockport Corporations Park & 5 I find from the parties stipulations that none of the pickets were em ployees of the Respondents in these cases 962 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Shop In the same letter, National Property Analysts stated that it would permit the pickets to stand at the perimeter of the property near the drive entrances as long as they are there in an orderly fashion On 11 July, Rita and George Karatjas ordered Local 1540's and 1453 s pickets, including Dan Sopher and one other former Ordman employee, to cease picketing and hand billing in the public area in front of the Lemont Corpora tion's Park & Shop and to move to an area at the perim eter of the Summit Plaza Shopping Center On 14 July, the Lockport Corporation intensified its effort to dislodge the pickets Jerry Siwinski, the manag er of Lockport Corporations Summit Plaza Park & Shop, photographed Dan Sopher and others as they picketed and handbilled on the public sidewalk fronting the Park & Shop Siwmski also threatened the same pick ets with arrest if they did not remove themselves from the front of the store On the same day, George Karatjas, acting on behalf of the Lockport Corporation, photo graphed Dan Sopher and others as they picketed the Summit Plaza Park & Shop Finally, Lockport police officers arrived and ordered the pickets to leave the sidewalk in front of the Park & Shop store Local 1540's and Local 1453 s pickets quick ly complied with the police order and began handbilling and picketing at the two Summit Drive entrances, oppo site the Park & Shop store However, there was no showing that the Lockport Corporation caused the police to intervene The three or four pickets stationed at the new location experienced a sharp reduction in their ability to handbill effectively Instead of having easy access to pedestrians, the pickets found themselves in a difficult situation, standing on the sides of the entrances, away from the driver s side, as cars turned to enter the shopping center The pickets handbilled only 3 or 4 percent of the cars entering the shopping center On 9 October, the Regional Director for the Board s Region 13 issued a consolidated complaint in these cases and Case 13-CA-26237 which included an allegation that National Property Analysts, Inc violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by its letter to the Lockport police On 26 November, the Regional Director severed Case 13- CA-26237 from the consolidated complaint, after he had approved a settlement agreement with National Property Analysts Inc Since December, National Property Analysts, Inc in compliance with the settlement agreement has relaxed its strictures against Local 1540's and Local 1453 s pick eting and handbilling at the Lockport Corporation's Park & Shop Since December, Local 1540 and Local 1453 have been handbilling and picketing on the sidewalk fronting that store at the Summit Plaza Shopping Center B Analysis and Conclusions The basic issue in these cases is whether as urged by the General Counsel Local 1540 and Local 1453 the pickets at the Lemont and Lockport Park & Shop stores were entitled to the protection of Section 7 of the Act The Respondents contend first that, as Local 1540 s and Local 1453 s sole objective was the destruction of the Lemont Corporations and the Lockport Corporation s respective businesses, the picketing and handbilling, in support of that objective was outside the protection of Section 7 of the Act The Respondents also argue that even if this picketing and handbilling was otherwise enti tled to some protection from Section 7 of the Act, picket line misconduct and the existence of alternative means of communication removed that protection For the follow ing reasons, I have rejected the Respondent's position In resolving this dispute I have sought guidance from the Board's decision in United Supermarkets, 283 NLRB 814 (1987) In that case, the Board found that United Su permarkets, Inc had violated Section 8(a)(1) by threaten ing to cause the arrest, and causing the arrest of four pickets who were protected by Section 7 of the Act while they were picketing in front of United's supermar ket, in a shopping center, and urging shoppers to shop elsewhere until pending unfair labor practice complaint allegations against the employer had been resolved The pickets also announced that the employers wages and benefits were inferior to those provided by union mar kets Included in the complaint were allegations that the employer had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging two of the pickets, Pricella Sain and Mary Jane Price 8 The picket signs carried by the four pickets declared United Supermarkets Unfair To Retail Clerks Union Local 368 Dallas, Texas Applying the analysis developed in Fairmont Hotel, 282 NLRB 139 (1986), the Board concluded that United Supermarkets had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act In United Supermarkets supra at 814-815, the Board recog nized that the Board s task is first to weigh the relative strength of each party s claim "' The Board reviewed, in detail, the weighing process as previously stated in Fair- mont Hotel, supra at 142 (fn omitted), as follows If the property owner s claim is a strong one, while the Section 7 right at issue is clearly a less compel ling one the property right will prevail If the property claim is a tenuous one, and the Section 7 right is clearly more compelling, then the Section 7 right will prevail Only in those cases where the rspective claims are relatively equal in strength will effective alternative means of communication become determinative The Board s explanation of the Fairmont Hotel analysis continued in United Supermarkets, supra at 815 as fol lows Factors that may affect the relative strength or weakness of an asserted property right include the following the use to which the property in question is put, any restrictions placed on public access to the property or to the facility located on the prop erty and the size and location of the private facile ty By way of example the Board noted that a single store surrounded by its own parking lot pro vided exclusively for the convenience of customers 6 The Board later resolved these allegations in United Supermarkets supra Inter aim the Board concluded that Sam s discharge had violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and that Price s had not violated the Act ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP will have a significantly more compelling property right claim than `the owner of a large shopping mall who allows the general public to utilize his property without substantial limitation [at 1421 Concerning the Section 7 right, factors that may affect the relative strength or weakness of such a right include the following the nature of the right asserted, the purpose for which it is being asserted, the employer that is the target of the activity, the situs of the activity the relationship of the situs to the target, the intended audience of the activity, and, possibly, the manner in which the right is being asserted [Ibid ] By way of example, the Board noted that organizational rights and the right to engage in primary economic activity at the situs of a dispute may be viewed as more compel ling than handbilling and other informational activi ty at locations other than the primary situs [Ibid ] The Board held that the Section 7 rights of the pickets in that case were more compelling than the Respond ent s property rights In reaching this conclusion, the Board noted that United did not restrict public access to the sidewalk in front of its supermarket From this cir cumstance, the Board concluded that respondent had "retained only a very limited property right claim to the sidewalk in front of its supermarket United Supermar kets, supra at 815 The Board s assessment of the Section 7 right under scrutiny in United Supermarkets was that it was `a strong one Id at 815 The Board rested this conclusion on findings that the pickets, Sam and Price acting under union direction, were attempting to protest the Re spondent s asserted unfair treatment of its employees that constituted alleged unfair labor practices and to bring pressure on the Respondent to end these practices, as well as to protest Respondent's alleged payment of wages inferior to those of unionized stores Ibid The Board also noted that the Respondent was the target of the picketing and the situs of the picketing was immedi ately in front of one of Respondents supermarkets at which some of the alleged unfair labor practices had oc curred Ibid Further the Board took into account that the respondents customers were the intended audience of the Union s picketing " Ibid Finally the Board noted that among the pickets were two discharged employees whose terminations had been alleged to constitute unfair labor practices, and that it had found one of them to be violative of the Act Id at 816 Comparing the facts before me in the instant cases with those before the Board in United Supermarkets, I find ample ground for reaching the same result regarding the picketing and handbilling here Both the Lemont Park & Shop and the Lockport Park & Shop respective ly, share a shopping center with several other stores In each instance, there is an extensive customer parking lot in front of the Park & Shop store and the other shopping center stores There are also entrances to each shopping center s parking lot which provide easy access from the bordering public roads and streets Each of the Park & Shop stores shares a common side walk with a row of other stores Pedestrians from the 963 parking lot are free to use these sidewalks as they pro ceed to either the Park & Shop store or to any of the other nearby stores There is no evidence that the Lemont Corporation, the Lockport Corporation, Nation al Property Analysts Inc Metro or any other mer chants, make certain that all pedestrians using the common sidewalks in their respective shopping centers are customers of any of the merchants in their respective shopping centers Aside from the student, civic, and reli gious organizations seeking to use the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center for activities likely to attract crowds and occupy a considerable portion of its parking lot, there was no showing of restrictions on lawful public access to the sidewalk or parking lots in the two shop ping centers The Lemont and the Lockport Corpora tions have on occasion sought police assistance in remov ing persons who were drunk or disorderly or harassing the customers from the sidewalk adjacent to their re spective stores I find, therefore that the Lemont Corpo ration and the Lockport Corporation have retained only a very limited property right claim to the sidewalk in front of [their respective Park & Shop stores] United Supermarkets, supra at 815 Although the Section 7 right at issue before me is not as strong as that before the Board in United Supermar kets, I find it was strong enough to outweigh the Lemont Corporation s, Metro's, and the Lockport Corporation s property rights As their handbills and picket signs pro claimed, the former Ordman employees together with the paid nonemployee union pickets, under the direction of Locals 1540 and 1453 were attempting to protest the unfair treatment of former Ordman employees at the hands of the Lemont Corporation and the Lockport Cor poration At the time the picketing and handbilling began at the Lemont Corporations Park & Shop, Local 1540 had filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Re gional Director for Region 13 alleging that the Lemont Corporation's refusal to hire former Ordman employees was violative of the Act On 21 May the Regional Di rector dismissed that charge on evidentiary grounds On 5 September the General Counsel denied Local 1540 s appeal Thus, the pickets in the instant cases were not protesting unfair labor practices unlike the pickets in United Supermarkets supra However here the Section 7 right of the pickets and handbillers to seek reinstate ment to the positions they formerly enjoyed under the prior owners of the Park & Shop stores was one of con siderable strength Cf Dave Castellano & Sons, 277 NLRB 453 459-461 (1985) That the Lemont Corporation and the Lockport Cor poration openly solicited job applications from the gener al public including former Ordman employees did not deprive the pickets of cause for complaint For the pick etng former Ordman employees were not interested in applications They were seeking reinstatement to their former jobs at the Park & Shop stores Further as in United Supermarkets the Lemont Cor poration and the Lockport Corporation, respectively, were the targets of the picketing and handbilling in the instant cases The situs of the picketing was in front of the Lemont Corporation's store which had not hired a 964 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD majority of its employees from among the former Ordman employees, and in front of the Lockport Corpo ration s store, where former Ordman's employees had not been hired for one third of the available jobs Here, as in United Supermarkets, the Park & Shop cus tomers at the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center and the Lockport Park & Shop customers at the Summit Plaza Shopping Center, respectively, were the intended audi ence for the messages on signs and handbills that the pickets displayed Persons approaching the sidewalk en trances to the Park & Shop stores were presumptively members of that audience I find therefore that handbill ing and picketing on the sidewalk in front of the Lemont and Lockport Stop & Shop stores was an appropriate means for the pickets to convey their message to this au dience ' United Supermarkets , supra at 816 Finally, I find no merit in the Respondents conten tions that the pickets misconduct at the Mokena Park & Shop deprived the Lemont and Lockport pickets of the protection of Section 7 of the Act For there has been no showing that the pickets either at the Lemont Corpora tion s Park & Shop or at the Lockport s Park & Shop, whether on the sidewalk, or at the entrances to the shop ping centers, obstructed store entrances, physically inter fered with prospective customers or threatened any of them, caused damage to Respondents property or dis rupted Respondents business operations Nor has there been any showing that any of the Respondents com plained to the Lemont or Lockport police about any picket line misconduct In sum the pickets here asserted an important Section 7 interest which substantially outweighed the Respond ents relatively weak property interests in restricting the use of the sidewalks in front of both the Lemont Corpo ration s Park & Shop and the Lockport Corporation's Park & Shop Therefore, I find that the Section 7 right exercised by Local 1540 Local 1453 and their respec tive pickets outweighed the Respondents property rights to remove the pickets from the sidewalks As the Section 7 rights asserted in these cases substantially out weighed the Respondents property rights, I find it un necessary to consider whether Locals 1540 and 1453 had access to reasonable alternative means for getting their message to their intended audiences In view of the foregoing I find that Metro violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by ordering Local 1450 not to picket or handbill in the public areas, in front of the Lemont Corporation's Park & Shop store and by asking the Lemont Police Department to enforce Metro s order I also find that the Lemont Corporation violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening Local 1540 s pickets with arrest for trespassing , unless they ceased picketing on the sidewalk adjacent to the Lemont Corporation's Park & Shop and by causing the Lemont Police Depart merit to remove Local 1540's pickets from the sidewalk adjacent to Lemont s Park & Shop to the perimeter of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center I find that the Lock port Corporation also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by ordering Local 1453 s and Local 1540's pickets away from the sidewalk in front of the Lockport Corporation s Park & Shop, and by threatening the pickets with arrest if they did not leave the sidewalk adjacent to the Lock port Corporations Park & Shop United Supermarkets, supra at 816 However I find that the evidence did not sustain the allegation that the Lockport Corporation caused the Lockport Police Department to remove the pickets from the sidewalk in front of the Lockport Corporations Park & Shop Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of this allegation The Board has recognized that absent picket line mis conduct, or a reasonable basis for anticipating such mis conduct an employer engages in surveillance violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by photographing pickets Waco Inc, 273 NLRB 746 747 (1984) Here, I find three instances in which Lockport Corporation has engaged in such unlawful conduct, as alleged On 7 July, Rita Karatjas violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when she photographed the pickets at the Lockport Corporations Park & Shop store, as they were standing on the sidewalk in front of the store At that time the pickets were not engaging in misconduct , and there was no showing that these pickets had given her sufficient cause to anticipate that they would soon engage in vio lence or other misconduct There was no showing that the Lockport pickets had threatened to engage in or had engaged in violence or other misconduct before Rita Karatjas began photographing them on the first day of their picketing and handbilling at the Lockport Corpora tion s Park & Shop I also find that the Lockport Corporations Park & Shop manager Jerry Siwinski, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when he photographed the pickets in front of his store on 14 July as they were peacefully picketing and handbilling There has been no showing that at the time Siwinski was taking pictures the pickets were either en gaging in misconduct or that Siwinski reasonably antici pated that the pickets would engage in misconduct as he stood by Finally I find that on 14 July George Karatjas on behalf of the Lockport Corporation violated the Act when he photographed the pickets at the same location Again there was no showing that picket line misconduct or reasonably anticipated misconduct excused George Karatjas conduct In sum I find that by George Karat jas conduct in this regard the Lockport Corporation vio lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I Respondents Karatjas Family Lockport Corpora tion d/b/a Ordman s Park & Shop Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ordman s Park & Shop and Metro Resource Investments, Inc are each an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6), and (7) of the Act 2 United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Locals 1540 and 1453 United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO CLC are each a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of Act 3 Respondent Metro Resource Investments Inc has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by ordering United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1540 not ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP to engage in peaceful picketing or handbilling activity in the public areas in front of a retail store operated by Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop and by requesting the Lemont Police De partment to prohibit Local 1540 from picketing or hand billing in the public area of Metro s Lemont Plaza Shop ping Center, in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Cor poration s hiring policy 4 Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ord man s Park & Shop has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening Local 1540 s pickets with arrest for trespass ing, if they did not remove their picketing and handbill ing, which was in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Corporations hiring policy, away from public areas adja cent to the Lemont Corporations Park & Shop store and by causing the Lemont Police Department to remove Local 1540's pickets away from the public areas adjacent to Lemont Corporations Park & Shop store to remote areas, at the entrance to the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center 5 Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ord man s Park & Shop has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating the im pression of surveillance of employees exercising their Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating the impression of surveillance of employees exercising their Section 7 rights, by photographing Local 1453 s and 1450 s peace ful pickets by ordering Local 1453 s and Local 1540 s peaceful pickets to move away from the public area adja cent to the Lockport Corporation's Park & Shop store to the perimeter of the Summit Plaza Shopping Center, and by threatening Local 1453 s and Local 1540 s peaceful pickets with arrest if they did not leave the public area adjacent to Lockport Corporations Park & Shop store at the Summit Plaza Shopping Center when the pickets were peacefully picketing and handbilltng in protest of Karatjas Family Lockport Corporations hiring policy 6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act 7 Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ord man s Park & Shop has not engaged in unfair labor prac tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by causing the Lockport Police Department to remove Local 1540 s and Local 1453 s pickets from public areas adjacent to the Lockport Corporations Park & Shop store THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents unlawfully inter fered with restrained and coerced employees in the ex ercise of their Section 7 rights, I shall recommend that they be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and take such affirmative action as I find necessary to remedy the effects of the unfair labor practices and to of fectuate the policies of the Act 965 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed7 ORDER A The Respondent, Metro Resource Investments, Inc, Hinsdale, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Ordering United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1540, or any other labor organization not to engage in peaceful picketing and handbilling in the public areas adjacent to Karatjas Family Lemont Corpo rations Ordman's Park & Shop store in the Lemont Shopping Plaza, Lemont, Illinois, in protest of Respond ent Karatjas Family Lemont Corporations failure to hire former employees of Ordman s Park & Shop stores (b) Advising or requesting the Lemont, Illinois Police Department to prohibit any employees or any representa tives of United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1540, or of any other labor organization, from picketing or handbilltng peacefully in the public areas of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Corporations failure to hire former em ployees of Ordman s Park & Shop stores (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re straining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post at conspicuous places in the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, copies of the attached notice marked Appendix B 8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13 after being signed by the Respondents authorized representative shall be posted by the Respondent Metro Resource In vestments, Inc immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond ent Metro Resource Investments, Inc to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced or covered by any other material (b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the notice to the Regional Director for posting by Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ordman s Park & Shop if it is willing, in conspicuous places, at its Lemont Shopping Plaza Park & Shop store Lemont Illinois including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted ° 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 a 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 966 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply B The Respondent, Karatjas Family Lemont Corpora tion d/b/a Ordman s Park & Shop Lemont, Illinois its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Threatening to cause the arrest, causing the arrest, or attempting to cause the arrest of any employee, or of any representative of United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1540, United Food and Commer cial Workers' International Union AFL-CIO, CLC, while they are peacefully picketing and handbilling on public areas adjacent to the Karatjas Family Lemont Corporations Park & Shop store at the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center Lemont Illinois, in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation's failure to hire former Ord man s Park & Shop employees (b) Causing or attempting to cause the Lemont Illinois Police Department to remove employees or representa tives of Local 1540, or of any other labor organization, from public areas adjacent to Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation's Park & Shop store, to the perimeter of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, while they are peaceful ly picketing and handbilling in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation's failure to hire former Ord man s Park & Shop employees (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post at its Ordman s Park & Shop store, located in the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center Lemont, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked Appendix C "9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by the Re spondent s authorized representative shall be posted by the Respondent Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu tive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced, or covered by any other material (b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply C The Respondent, Karatjas Family Lockport Corpo ration d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop, Lockport Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Engaging in surveillance by photographing pickets acting on behalf of United Food and Commercial Work ers Union, Locals 1540 and 1453, United Food and Com mercial Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, CLC, as they lawfully and peacefully picket or distribute hand bills outside the Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation s Park & Shop store at the Summit Plaza Shopping Center, Lockport Illinois (b) Ordering employees , or any representative of Local 1540, Local 1453, or of any other labor organiza tion who are peacefully picketing or handbilling in pro test of the Karatjas Family Lockport Corporations fail ure to hire former employees of Ordman s Park & Shop stores at Karatjas Family Lockport Corporations Park & Shop, to move from the public area adjacent to the Kar atjas Family Lockport Corporations Park & Shop store to the perimeter of the Summit Plaza Shopping Center (c) Threatening pickets on behalf of Locals 1540 and 1453 with arrest for trespassing, if they did not remove their peaceful picketing and handbilling activity in pro test of Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation's failure to hire former employees of Ordman s Park & Shop stores, away from the public areas adjacent to Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation's Park & Shop store, at the Summit Plaza Shopping Center, Lockport, Illinois to the perimeter of the Summit Plaza Shopping Center (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post at its Ordman s Park & Shop store located in the Summit Plaza shopping Center Lockport Illinois copies of the attached notice marked Appendix D 10 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13 after being signed by the Re spondent s authorized representative shall be posted by the Respondent Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al tered, defaced, or covered by any other material (b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the amended con solidated complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges vio lations of the Act not specifically found in this decision 9 See fn 8 supra 10 See fn 8 supra