Midway Golden Dawn

152 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Midway Foodmart, Inc d/b/a Midway Golden Dawn and United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 23, AFL-CIO-CLC Cases 8-CA-19668-2 and 8-CA-19997 March 10, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND HIGGINS On August 9, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Richard H Beddow Jr issued the attached deci sion The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup porting brief 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 brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and conclusions2 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, Midway Foodmart, Inc, d/b/a Midway Golden Dawn, Wintersville, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order I The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find rags 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 2 In adopting the judge s conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing recognition from the Union in November 1986 we note that the most significant evidence of purported employee disaffection from the Union-and the only documentary evidence of record-is the petition of November 19-20 This document did not appear until 2 full months into the Respondents unlawful course of avoidance of its bargaining obligations by refusing to accept or acknowl edge the Union s attempted communications-conduct that strikes at the heart of the Union s legitimate role as representative of the employees Given the Respondents repeated and open rejection of the Unions of forts to obtain a meeting it is clear that the Respondents conduct would likely have contributed to the Union s loss of standing among the unit employees thereby rendering unreliable the November petition See Lou isiana Pacific Corp Y NLRB 858 F 2d 576 (9th Cir 1988) Richard F Mack, Esq for the General Counsel Jonathan E Jones Esq of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania for the Respondent James R Reehl Esq of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RICHARD H BEDDOW JR , Administrative Law Judge This matter was heard in Stubenville Ohio on March 2 1988 Subsequently, briefs were filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent The proceeding is based on charges filed December 15, 1986, and April 9 , 1987 i by United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 23, AFL-CIO-CLC The Regional Direc tor s consolidated complaint dated May 22, 1987, alleges that Respondent Midway Foodmart , Inc, doing business as Midway Golden Dawn , violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with the Union as exclusive representative of its employees, refusing to provide information requested by the Union which was necessary for and relevant to the Union s performance of its function as the exclusive rep resentative, and refusing to make payments to the Union s Tri State U F C W and Employee Benefits Funds without prior notice or bargaining with the Union On a review of the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Respondent is engaged in the retail sale of groceries at Wintersville, Ohio and it has annual gross revenues over $500 000 It annually purchases and receives goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside Ohio and it admits that at all times material is and has been an employer engaged in operations affect mg commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act It also admits that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Amelia Zatezalo began working at the involved gro cery store in 1964 She was a shop steward in the store's union and was instrumental in establishing Local 590 of the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC which was the Charging Party s predecessor union at the Respondents facility (In Febru ary 1983 Local 590 merged with Local 1407 in the for mation of Local 23) The Union has represented employ ees at the involved Wintersville grocery store for many years and the most recent contract was effective between December 16 1983, and December 16, 1986 On February 14 1984, Zatezalo and her husband became owners of the store and as a successor employ er recognized Local 23 as the employees collective bar gaining representative Amelia Zatezalo became presi dent of the Respondent There is no indication that her husband plays any active role in Respondents affairs i All following dates are in 1986 unless otherwise indicated 293 NLRB No 18 MIDWAY GOLDEN DAWN Human Resources Management, Inc (H R M) became Respondents labor consultant in January 1984, and pur ports to represent Respondent in all facets of personnel and labor relations, including representation in grievance proceedings and labor negotiations At a meeting in Jan uary the employees and a union representative were told of Respondents purchase of the business and that H R M (which also had a representative present at the meeting) would handle all the labor negotiations The ex isting contract contained a valid union security clause however, this authority was withdrawn subsequent to a petition by the employees (Case 8-UD-21 1) on Novem ber 29, 1985 On Friday, September 19, 1986 (as reflected in the postmark), the Union sent notification to the Respondent of its desire to open contract negotiations This notice was sent by certified mail in accordance with the Union s regular practice As reflected on the returned envelope (the envelope prominently identifies the Union in a pre printed format), the certified mail was rejected by Re spondent on September 23 and returned to the post office (the return receipt bearing a stamp dated Septem ber 24, Stubenville), and subsequently returned to the Union by the postal service On September 26 an RD decertification petition was filed with the Board by employee Terese Antol (Case 8- RD-1359) Zatezalo testified that she went to Florida on Septem ber 14 and that when she returned on September 21 or 22 she found a copy of the employees petition on her desk She called H R M and sent it the copy The next day she was asked by Terese Antol if she had received her letter She replied yes, and assertedly had no further conversation Antol testified that she had talked to other employees about their vote to remove the union security clause (which had occurred before she was hired), and that some employees got together and decided to seek de certification of the Union She contacted the National Labor Relations Board, prepared and circulated a peti tion, sent it to the Board, and placed a copy on Zateza lo s desk She failed to testify as to the dates when these specific actions occurred and the petition was not made a part of the record 2 Almost 2 months later a second pet! Lion was prepared, after Antol was told by the Board that it needed a copy This second petition (R Exh 2) reflects the signatures of 26 employees bearing dates of November 19 and 20, 1986 Antol testified that when she came to work no one had told her to join the Union and she knew she had no obligation to join She testified that she was not trying to get rid of the Union for herself personally but that it was her understanding that our contract was coming due ' and that she had the interest of the majority of the employees She did not explain the source of her under standing but admitted that she knew Frank Botta, a rep resentative of H R M , from his coming into the store When asked if they ever discussed the petition, she an 2 The referred to petition copy given to Zatezalo was totally in Antos s own handwriting as Antol testified that she did not have a photo copier 153 swered that she had asked him questions and that he had said he could not give her information because he repre sented Zatezalo Antol also said she was not sure what she did but may have given Botta a copy of the petition after she got it signed Meanwhile on October 7, 1986, the Union sent a second certified letter to Respondent that repeated the request contained in the September 19 letter and also in cluded a request for Respondent's current seniority list This letter also was rejected by Respondent and returned to the Union by the postal service Zatezalo testified that the letters were rejected because she has a policy that certified mail be rejected when she is not present to authorize its acceptance She further tes tified that on the dates delivery was attempted she was away from the store and that she was unaware of the Union s attempts to reach her by certified mail Following rejection of the Union s second letter, Union Business Representative Anthony Helfer was in structed to personally hand deliver a copy of the Octo ber 7, 1986 letter to Respondents facility He went to the store office about noon on October 21, 1986, and spoke with Mildred Beatty, who is Zatezalo s daughter Beatty said Zatezalo was not there Helfer gave the letter to Beatty and Eleanor Pitzer, an employee who had come into the office The letter was read by Pitzer and Beatty and Beatty told Helfer that although the in formation was upstairs she did not have authority to get it for Helfer Helfer requested that Beatty give the letter to her mother but received an ambiguous response 3 In late November Zatezalo was given a copy of the second petition In this document, 26 (of between 29 and 31) employees indicated a desire that they no longer wished to be represented by the Union Zatezalo asserts that she was unaware the petition was being circulated as she was away at a 3 day seminar in Buffalo and that she played no role in its preparation 4 Zatezalo testified that because of the petitions and her awareness of other com plaints from and communications with employees she de veloped the belief that the Union no longer held a major sty status in the store She did not indicate on the record how this belief was communicated to the store s labor consultant However the Union was notified by letter of November 24 from H R M Representative Frank Botta 3 Beatty has worked at the store since 1977 She testified that the only time she had previously seen Helfer was at an arbitration proceeding and that she had never seen him at the store or had any conversation with him She said she did not know if she was at the store on October 21 Respondent s work schedule however indicated that she worked from noon to 5 p in that day Otherwise she testified that she is at the store on a daily basis and is often at her parent s home above the store when not actually on the schedule Neither party called Pitzer as a witness I find that Helfer s overall demeanor indicated that he was a credible wit ness Under the circumstances especially those which indicate that Beatty was at the store when Helfer assertedly came Beatty s long serv ice at the store her relationship to the owner and the absence of cor roborating testimony from an identified witness I do not credit her denial of the conversation and I find Helfer s testimony to be the most believable * Conversely she also testified that she was unsure of the date she had gone to Buffalo and answered a question that implied that the dates of the Buffalo trip precluded her from being in the store when Helfer made his October 21 visit 154 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on behalf of the Respondent, that the Respondent was withdrawing recognition from the Union Thereafter, in January 1987, the Employer ceased making monthly payments to the Union's employee pen sion and benefit funds III DISCUSSION The Charging Party has been the certified collective bargaining representative at the Respondent's store for many years and, as such, it has the benefit of a rebuttable presumption that it continued to enjoy majority repre sentative status The fact that a union security provision was withdrawn in November 1985 is irrelevant to the Union's majority status and, accordingly, I find that the presumption is operative and that a prima facie case has been established that the Respondent Employer is obli gated to bargain with the Union A Refusal to Acknowledge Communications The Union attempted to begin negotiations for a new contract on September 19, approximately 3 months prior to the expiration date of the existing contract on Decem ber 16, 1986 The Union s method of communication was by certified mail on September 19 and again on October 7, both addressed to Mildred Zatezalo, president of Midway Golden Dawn, at the appropriate address and the outside of the envelope clearly identified the Union as the sender A third effort was a personal visit from the union representative to the store on October 21 and hand delivery of a letter to Zatezalo s daughter (a store em ployee), and another employee, accompanied by a re quest that the letter be conveyed to Zatezalo Although the Respondent denies the personal delivery as found above I credit the testimony of the union representative that delivery was accomplished in the manner he de scribed Subsequent to each of the attempted communications, the Respondents owner the owners daughter and some employees engaged in a series of interrelated actions in which the Respondent affirmatively precluded acknowl edgment of the Union's repeated attempts to communi cate with the Respondent's owner My review of Zatezalo s testimony and demeanor leads to the conclusion that she has made an apparent at tempt to present the appearance of a person who has di vorced herself from day to day knowledge and responsi bility of personal labor related matters regarding her em ployees However she also testified that she had been a union steward and a prime mover in bringing the Re spondent Union into the store and she purports to have received and understood objective indications that most of her employees no longer desired to be represented by the Union On the other hand, she purports to refer ev erything regarding labor matters to her consultant, H R M, and to be completely unknowledgeable about such matters Under these circumstances I find Zateza lo's disclaimers to be implausible and so self serving as to lack probative value, and I do not credit her testimony that she was unaware of the Union s three attempts to begin contract negotiations I find that based on her experience as a company president, an apparent principal operating officer, and a former union member and steward, she was aware that the then current contract was due to expire shortly, and I infer that she had reason to believe any communication from the Union at this time would relate to the subject of a new contract This is especially true in that, in an apparent response to Zatezalo's expressed fears about keeping the store open, Respondent's employees had re quested that the Union seek reopening of the contract in the fall of 1985 and that after meetings with the Union, the Union granted the Company concessions that it de sired Accordingly, I do not credit her denial that she was aware of the contracts impending expirations This denial was accompanied by her implausible and gratui tous testimony that she "didn't pay any attention to it be cause she didn t handle that stuff " Zatezalo testified that she had a close personal relationship with her employees and would probably know anything that happened at the store She had two daughters and other relations who worked at the stores and, as noted, she lived above the store, all factors that would support the inference that she would have been made aware of each of the three union attempts to reach her The two rejected certified letters were in envelopes that clearly identified the Union as the sender the letters were addressed to Mildred Zatezalo president of Midway Golden Dawn, and the letters were specifically rejected by someone at the store I find that Zatezalo had returned from Florida when the first certified mail delivery was attempted and I infer that a decision was made to disclaim her presence and reject the letter be cause of its union letterhead Although the Respondent claims a policy of not per mitting certified mail to be received when Zatezalo was not present at the store, the record does not persuasively establish that such a policy existed that such a policy was clearly communicated to its employees, or that Zate zalo was in fact not present at her residence at the same address as the store Zatezalo testified that the policy was uniformly ad hered to, but she admitted under cross examination that other persons at the store had signed for certified mail Subsequently she explained that certified mail directed generally to the store could be accepted but not her per sonal mail As noted the letter here was addressed to both Moreover, it was established that at least two certi feed letters from the Board addressed to Midway Food mart, etc Attn Mildred Zatezalo, were signed for by her daughter employee Beatty on May 23, 1987 and by employee Pitzer on December 18, 1986 Shortly after Zatezalo returned to the store from her Florida trip, the employee decertification petition sur faced and appeared on Zatezalo s desk Zatezalo testified "Approximately nine employees appeared to have family ties to the owner Employee Hattie Vojvodich is married to Owner Zatezalo s nephew JoAnn Nick Mark and Amelia Volvodich also are employees In addition to Zatezalo s daughter Mildred Beatty a list of employees also includes Jerry Beatty Marcella (identified as a daughter) and Mike Zatezalo MIDWAY GOLDEN DAWN that her immediate reaction was to call the H R M rep resentative and send him a copy Respondent apparently contends that the petition was prepared sometime prior to Zatezalo's return from Flort da and prior to the attempted delivery of the Union's letter, however, no specific evidence was presented that would establish this as a fact Employee Antol, who circulated the petition, did not specifically indicate when the petition was prepared, cir culated, or signed No copy of the petition was placed into evidence and none of the employee petitioners were called to testify regarding the date or the circumstances under which it was signed Moreover , no corroborative letter, copy, or other communication, such as any notifi cation to the Union, was made by any of the employees Antol admitted, however, that she had spoken with H R M 's representative about the petition and may" have sent them a copy Under these circumstances, I find that there is no probative evidence of record that would show that any independent employee action with regards to decertification took place prior to the attempted deliv ery of the Union s letter requesting contract negotiations Respondents second refusal to receive certified mail occurred on an unspecified date after the letter was mailed on October 7 Zatezalo asserts she was not present to accept it because she was at a convention in Warren, Ohio, from Sunday, October 5, through Tues day, October 7 It would appear, however, that inas much as the letter was mailed in Pittsburgh on October 7, the date of attempted delivery would have been Thursday October 9 (or 1 day before or after), days when Zatezalo was not shown or alleged to have been out of town and unable to accept certified mail It also was not established that Zatezalo was out of town on October 21, when hand delivery of the letter was attempted Although Zatezalo testified that neither her daughter nor employee Pitzer told her that Helfer had come to the store and tried to deliver a letter to her, for the reasons otherwise noted above, I find such testi mony to be inherently uncredible and I do not credit her purported lack of knowledge of this delivery I therefore conclude that the Union is shown to have made three valid communications of its request to bar gain on or about September 23 and October 9 and 21 I further infer that Respondent knowingly attempted to preclude receipt of these communications from the Union because it had reason to believe they concerned a request to bargain with respect to the forthcoming expi ration of their collective bargaining agreement Under these circumstances Respondents refusal to acknowl edge communications from the Union is an unfair labor practice and further constitutes a refusal to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, as alleged As indicated above, I do not credit the testimony that Respondents president and controlling official was com pletely unknowledgeable of her Company s labor related affair Independent of this conclusion, however, I also find that a company's burden of ultimate responsibility cannot be ignored by or transferred from its president owner Here, Zatezalo can not purport ignorance and delegate all responsibility for the Company s labor relations to its 155 agent, H R M She cannot say "take care of it, I don't want to know about it" and thereby be relieved of all re sponsibilities under the National Labor Relations Act While it may be inferred that Respondent's labor rela tions strategy has been orchestrated by Consultant H R M , it is clear that this has been done in fulfillment of Zatezalo's own desires and directions If in fact these practices could have actually insulated her from any knowledge of the Union's attempt to initiate collective bargaining, this must be considered to have been done at Respondent's peril and, accordingly, I find that the com munications otherwise shown to have been made by the Union are sufficient to establish knowledge that must be imputed to Respondent's responsible official, Zatezalo Although the Respondent suggests that the Union's communication effort should have been directed to its consultant, the Union noted that it is their standard pro cedure to send all contract negotiation notices directly to the Employer rather than representatives as the latter are apt to change Otherwise, I find that delivery at the Em ployer s regular place of business and mailing address constitutes a valid communication of a request to negoti ate regardless of the existence of any consulting arranged between the Employer and a representative B Withdrawal of Recognition and Refusal to Bargain Respondent withdrew recognition of the Union by letter to the Union dated November 24, 1986, signed by a representative of H R M This letter stated The employers good faith doubt is supported by a National Labor Relations Board certified UD election conducted on November 29, 1985, a decer tification petition pending with the National Labor Relations Board and the supporting showing of in terest delivered to the employer, withdrawal cards sent to a majority of employees and a recent peti tion received by the employer and signed by a ma jority of the employees stating that the employees do not wish to be represented by Local 23 As noted above, the Respondent engaged in negotiations with the Union and obtained contract concessions at a time contemporaneous with the UD (security clause withdrawal) proceeding I also find this recognition of the Union s negotiating rights precludes any probative affirmative basis for its belief based on the results of the November 1985 election Moreover that proceeding was directed solely at the deduction of union dues from em ployees paychecks All purported employees resigna tion statements (R Exh R 1), which were the basis for the November 1985 proceeding in which the union secu rity clause was withdrawn, are set forth in the identical format as follows I work at Midway Golden Dawn and I do not want anymore Union dues de ducted from my pay check These employees statements were conveyed to the Union along with a letter dated December 13 1985, in which the Respondent, through H R M notified the 156 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Union that it would cease deduction of dues from these employees and I find them to be valid for this purpose The statements, however, fall far short of being an un equivocal resignation of union membership The plain language of the statements is directed at the withholding of dues not union membership, and there is nothing to indicate that any employee could not continue to retain union membership (by paying dues directly to a union steward or business representative, for example) There is no indication that any individual employee conveyed any specific form of membership resignation to the Union at any time and there is no other resignation documentation prior to the so called second petition which bears em ployee signature dates of November 19 and 20 There is no probative evidence regarding the specific contents or dates of employees' signatures in the first pe tition, and I am not persuaded that it was prepared prior to the Respondent's refusal to accept the Union's first certified letter in September The testimony of employee, Antol, who prepared the petition, stands alone The first petition apparently was not received by the Board in Pittsburgh until September 26 In view of the timing and other circumstances noted above, I find Antol s testimo ny to be implausible and unpersuasive as it was vague, unspecific regarding dates, and stands uncorroborated by any written document or by the testimony of any of the alleged signees The burden is on an employer to rebut the presump tion of continuing majority status and here there is no persuasive showing that the Respondent had an objective basis for a good faith belief regarding the majority status of the Union even at the time its representative sent its letter withdrawing recognition The limited number of employees authorizing dues de ductions is not reliable evidence of employees dissatis faction and cannot be considered a probative objective consideration See Alexander Linn Hospital Assn 288 NLRB 103 (1988) Moreover the mere filing of a decer tification petition neither requires nor permits an employ er to withdraw from bargaining Dresser Industries 264 NLRB 1088 (1982), and it does not afford an employer the privilege of taking the further step of withdrawing recognition See Alexander Linn Hospital Assn , supra Here Respondents withdrawal of recognition was made precipitously without benefit of waiting for the Board s procedures, and it was made in an atmosphere tainted by Respondents repeated unfair labor practices in rejecting and ignoring the Union's attempts to bargain Otherwise, the sequence of events shown above indicate that employee manifestations of union disenchantment were generated in apparent reaction to attempted com munication by the Union made shortly before the time for expiration of the existing bargaining agreement Respondent did not wait for the results of the election sought by the employees petition to thereby resolve any of its asserted doubts I conclude that the timing of its overall actions showed its assertation of a doubt of ma jonty status was a pretext to avoid its statutory duty to bargain with the Union for a new contract Accordingly, I conclude that the General Counsel has shown that Re spondent has refused to bargain with the Union and has violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as alleged The allegations in the complaint with respect to the failure to provide information are admitted by Respond ent in its answer and Respondent admits that it has re fused to make payments into the various benefits funds Accordingly and in view of the conclusions made above it is clear that Respondents failures and refusals in these respects constitute further violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act as alleged CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 The Union is a labor organization within the mean ing of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 At all times material, the Union has been the exclu sive bargaining representative of the employees within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act 4 By refusing to receive appropriately delivered com munications from the Union and by refusing to bargain with the Union, on request, concerning the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for em ployees in the above bargaining unit, and by failing and refusing to furnish the Union information necessary for and relevant to the performance of its collective bargain ing functions, Respondent has engaged in and is engag ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act 5 By refusing since January 10, 1987, to make pay ments to the Union s Tri State UFCW and employee benefits funds without prior notice to or bargaining with the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that Respond ent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Having found that the Respondent refused to furnish information and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the ap propriate unit, I will recommend that the Respondent on request provide necessary and relevant information and bargain collectively with the Union as such representa tive and if an understanding is reached embody the un derstanding in a signed agreement Having found that the Respondent unilaterally ceased making required pay ments to the union and employees benefits funds Re spondent also will be ordered to resume making such payments and to reimburse the funds for all payments it has failed to make, with interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in Merryweather Optical Co, 240 NLRB 1213 1216 fn 7 (1979) Otherwise it is not considered to be necessary that a broad order be issued MIDWAY GOLDEN DAWN K On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend ed6 ORDER The Respondent Midway Foodmart, Inc d/b/a Midway Golden Dawn, Wintersville, Ohio its officers agents successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to receive appropriately delivered com munications from its employees certified collective bar gaining representative (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union on request as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages hours of employment or other terms and condi tions of employment (c) Refusing to furnish the Union with information rel evant to the Union s collective bargaining duties (d) Unilaterally refusing to make payments to the Union s Tri State UFCW and employee benefits funds (e) 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) On request provide the Union with information relevant to the Union's collective bargaining duties and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive rep resentative of all employees with respect to rates of pay wages hours of employment, and other terms and condi tions of employment and, if any understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree ment (b) Establish procedures whereby communications from the Union to the Respondents business and or its president will not be rejected but will be received and delivered to Respondents president (c) Resume making payments to the Union s Tri State UFCW and employee benefits funds and reimburse the funds for all payments that it failed to make with inter est in the manner specified in the remedy section above (d) Preserve and on request make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all payroll records, social security records, timecards per sonnel records and reports, and all other records neces nary to analyze Respondents obligations to reimburse the Union s benefits funds for losses suffered as a result of the above described unfair labor practice (e) Post at its Wintersville Ohio facility, copies of the attached notice marked Appendix ' Copies of the 6 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 ° 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 a] 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 157 notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediate ly 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 Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by an other material (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 APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or dered us to post and abide by this notice Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect ed concerted activities WE WILL NOT refuse to receive appropriately deliv ered communications from United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Local 23 AFL-CIO- CLC, our employees' collective bargaining representa tive WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Union on request as the exclusive representative of our employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay wages hours of employment or other terms and conditions of employment WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union with infor mation relevant to the Union s collective bargaining duties WE WILL NOT unilaterally refuse to make payments to the Union s Tri State UFCW and employee benefits funds WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL resume contributions to the Tri State UFCW and employee benefits funds and transmit to the funds all contributions we have withheld since January 10, 1987 with interest WE WILL on request provide the Union with informa tion relevant to the Union s collective bargaining duties and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of our employees with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other terms and conditions of employment and if any understanding is 158 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree president will not be rejected, but will be received and ment delivered to the appropriate official WE WILL establish procedures whereby communica tions from the Union to our business office and or our MIDWAY FOODMART, INC D/B/A MIDWAY GOLDEN DAWN