Harris-Teeter Super Markets, Inc

HARRIS TEETER SUPER MARKETS Harris-Teeter Super Markets , Inc and United Food and Commercial Workers Union , Local 204, af- filiated with United Food and Commercial Workers Inteiational Union, AFL-CIO, CLC Cases 11-CA-12664 April 20, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, HIGGINS, AND DEVANEY On December 14, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Lawrence W Cullen issued the attached de cision The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting beef, and the General Counsel filed an an- swering 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order 3 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 We grant the General Counsels motion to correct the transcript re garding the testimony of salvage dock employee Craig concerning the 8(a)(5) direct dealing violation The corrected sentence reads He asked like James what do you think about it and I said I don t like it In quoting the testimony of Leadman Hatley regarding a conversation between Hatley and Director Kiser the judge inadvertently omitted the word not The sentence correctly reads I said well it s not been like that in the past and he said-in the fork lifts job and he said well that s not the fork lift shop we re talking about the maintenance department These corrections do not affect our decision We make the following corrections in the judge s citations Peerless Publications 283 NLRB 334 (1987) and Allied Products Corp 218 NLRB 1246 (1975) The judge inadvertently gave the wrong case number for the second case it is Case 11-CA-12844 9 In sec IV D of his decision the judge found that the Respondent made a unilateral change in the terms and conditions of employment of the employees in its forklift and maintenance departments The judge found that prior to February 1988 the Respondent promoted employees from mechanic III to mechanic II to mechanic I on the basis of merit without requiring a vacancy in the higher positions The judge found that after February 1988 the Respondent refused to promote employees with out there being a vacancy in a higher level position In adopting the judge s findings we rely inter alia on the following credited testimony [General Counsel to Hatley a I in the forklift dept ] Based on your experience as fork lift mechanic lead man what would happen to employees in the fork lift mechanics helpers classification [a III] after they worked in that position for a period of time and learned what was going on and how to do the work? They progressed and went to the two and then from two to the one Was anything [said] to you at that point [Dec 16 1985] about there having to be a position place for them9 No ORDER 743 The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Harris Teeter Super Markets, Inc, Charlotte, North Caro- lina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order George Carson Esq for the General Counsel John 0 Pollard Esq (Blakeney Alexander & Machen), of Charlotte North Carolina, for the Respondent DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LAWRENCE W CULLEN Administrative Law Judge This case was heard before me on September 12 and 13 1988, at Monroe, North Carolina pursuant to a consoli dated complaint issued by the Regional Director for Region 11 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) on August 29 1988, and is based on charges filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 204, affiliated with United Food and Commercial Work ers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the Union) The complaint in Case 11-CA-12664 is based on an amended charge filed on March 23, 1988 The complaint in Case 11-CA-12844 is based on a charge filed on August 1, 1988 The consolidated complaint alleges that Harris Teeter Super Markets, Inc (the Respondent) vio lated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Rela tions Act (the Act) by instituting unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment of employees in the bargaining unit represented by the Union and by engag ing in direct dealing with its unit employees thereby by passing the Union Respondent has by its answer filed on September 2, 1988 denied the commission of any viola tions of the Act On the entire record in this proceeding, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Counsel for Respondent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I JURISDICTION THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that Respondent has been at all times material a North Carolina corporation with warehouse facilities located at Charlotte, North Carolina where it is engaged in the dis tribution of groceries, produce meats and other goods to its various retail sale stores , that during the past 12 month period preceding the filing of the complaint a representative period of all times material Respondent sold and distributed goods of a gross volume in excess of $500 000 and purchased and received goods directly from points located outside the State of North Carolina valued in excess of $50 000 I find based on the foregoing admitted facts that Respondent is now, and has been at all times material an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 293 NLRB No 93 744 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleges and Respondent admits that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec tion 2(5) of the Act III THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The complaint alleges and Respondent admitted at the hearing and I find that the following employees of Re spondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act All employees employed by Respondent at its Char lotte North Carolina,' distribution center and bakery including leadmen, dispatchers warehouse clerical employees, drivers forklift maintenance em ployees refrigeration mechanics and regular part time employees, excluding office clerical employees, managerial employees professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act The complaint further alleges, Respondent admits and I find that the Union has been since August 5, 1976, and continuing thereafter the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit for purposes of collective bargaining with respect to wages, salaries, working con ditions, and other terms and conditions of employment IV THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A The Alleged Unilateral Promulgation of a Sexual Harassment Policy It is undisputed that on October 19, 1987, Mike Kiser 2 Respondents director of distribution called Union Chief Shop Steward Kenneth Bailey into his office showed him a document entitled Harrassment Behavior which is an internal management policy with an effective date of December 9, 1982 (G C Exh 2) and which discusses and prohibits sexual harassment and informed Bailey that he was probably not aware of the policy and that Kiser would discuss it shortly with the warehouse unit employees At that time Bailey told Kiser he wanted to review the policy with the Union s negotiating commit tee Shortly after this meeting (within the hour) Kiser called a meeting of all employees and reviewed the policy with them Then Steward John LeGrande (who is now chief steward) contended that he had not seen the policy During the meeting the question was raised re garding what would happen if the alleged perpetrator of the sexual harassment denied the allegations by the al leged victim and Kiser informed the employees that the parties to the dispute would be required to take stress analysis tests to determine who was telling the truth It is ' The distribution center and bakery is actually outside the city of Charlotte North Carolina in the adjacent metropolitan area in a locale known as Indian Trail and is referred to as the Indian Trail distribution center 2 It was stipulated that Director of Distribution Mike Kiser Personnel Administrator Bill Murray Personnel Manager John Brewer Distribu tion Manager Dwight Johnson and Supervisors Don Dunegan John Chandler Cliff Stokes and James Pate are all supervisors within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act undisputed and Bailey and LeGrande testified and Kiser acknowledged on the stand that there is no evidence that the Union was ever made aware of the existence of this internal management policy The Respondent raises as an affirmative defense its assertion that the policy was pro mulgated on December 9, 1982 during a period when the Respondent had withdrawn recognition from the Union between December 2 1982, until April 29, 1983 when it voluntarily recognized the Union again in settle ment of an unfair labor practice charge filed against it From this Respondent reasons that the Union had a duty to demand that Respondent identify and rescind all uni lateral changes made by it during this period as the Re spondent made several unilateral changes that were al leged by the Union as violations in the unfair labor prac tices charge but that this particular charge was not listed by the Union in its unfair labor practice charge filed at that time Analysis I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by its unilateral promulgation of its sexual harassment policy on October 19 1987, to its employees without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain concerning it I find the Respondent's affirmative defense that the Union should have somehow been charged with knowledge of the internal management policy in the face of the uncontroverted facts that it did not have such knowledge to be totally without merit Allis Chalmers Corp, 234 NLRB 350 (1978), Peerless Publications, 283 NLRB 334 (1987) B The 4 day Workweek There were rumors at Respondents Indian Trail facili ty that Respondent was considering going from its cur rent 5 day workweek schedule to a 4 day workweek similar to that at another of its facilities James Craig a salvage department employees testified that he was in formed by his supervisor, Don Dunegan that the 4 day workweek was under consideration and would be dis cussed at an upcoming meeting among the salvage em ployees Craig testified that at the meeting Dunegan pointed to each of the six salvage employees and asked them what they thought about the 4 day workweek that three were against it and three were in favor of it that Dunegan advised that their department would not be of fected unless they wanted it, and that it would have to be negotiated with the Union Craig also testified that Dunegan handed out a schedule of another facility to show them how the 4 day workweek would operate Dunegan testified that he was asked by employees con cerning the 4 day workweek and gave them an old schedule from the facility where he had previously worked to show how the 4 day workweek would oper ate and told the employees it could be discussed at an upcoming meeting held March 1 1988 and that at that meeting also attended by Dwight Johnson distribution manager of Indian Trail, three employees sat in one corner of the room and three in the other corresponding to three being in favor of the 4 day workweek opposed Both Dunegan and Johnson contended that there was HARRIS TEETER SUPER MARKETS little discussion that no questions were asked of the em ployees concerning the workweek, and that the employ ees merely expressed their preference and were advised the 4 day workweek would need to be discussed with the Union Analysis I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by engaging in direct dealings with the employees in the salvage department to ascertain their views in connection with the 4 day workweek and Dun egan did solicit those views from the employees on behalf of Respondent To the extent that there is a differ ence in testimony, I credit Craig s version that Dunegan directly asked the employees their opinions on the 4 day workweek rather than the version of Dunegan and Johnson to the effect that they were mere bystanders al lowing the employees to express themselves Respond ent s own memorandum in pertinent part states NOTES ON MONTHLY MEETING WITH SALVAGE DOCK DWIGHT JOHNSON-DONALD DUNEGAN 1 Discussion with employees four day schedule Asked how they felt There were three for and three against They felt they may lose some hours and they didn t like staying until 9 30 (Emphasis sup plied ) cc Lew Wilson Mike Kiser Dwight Johnson Donald Dunegan John Chandler Such direct dealing in order to ascertain the desires of the employees in preparation for bargaining with the Union violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act Obte Pacific Inc, 196 NLRB 458 (1972) C Respondent s Restroom Break Policy It is undisputed that Respondent has long had a policy of allowing a 15 minute warmup break out of each hour for its freezer employees who are required to work in frigid temperatures and who wear protective clothing In addition these employees received an unpaid lunch period and a 15 minute break in the morning and a 15 minute break in the afternoon that can be put together with a 15 minute hourly warmup break for a half hour break in the morning and the afternoon On April 18 1988 freezer employee William Young left the freezer approximately 8 minutes early to go to the restroom and then proceeded to take his full half hour combined break Don Dunegan who had then only recently been charged with the supervision of the freezer employees, called Young into his office and advised him that restroom breaks were to be taken during the warmup or other scheduled breaktimes Young protested this and later that day, he was given a disciplinary Constructive Advice Form for overstaying his break and was in structed by Dunegan and Indian Trail Distribution Man ager Dwight Johnson and on the advice form signed by 745 both supervisors that warm up breaks are 15 minutes per hour in duration and that bathroom time is to be in cluded in this time and shall not be in addition to the 15 minutes At the hearing Young testified that he had always pre viously been permitted to go to the restroom as the need arose and Johnson ackowledged that the policy set out on the constructive advice form is not the current rest room break policy Further, Freezer Union Shop Stew and Frank Sullivan testified that the policy has been to permit the employees to use the restroom whenever mother nature called , you went Sullivan also testified that at a negotiating meeting held between Respondent and the Union on May 12, 1988, Director of Distribution Mike Kiser reaffirmed to the employees that the freezer crew were entitled to a 15 minute warmup break each hour even if they were on the dock instead of in the freezer and that the employees could go to the bathroom as mother nature called so long as they did not make a habit of it It is undisputed that the Respondent did not at any time give the Union notice of a change in the rest room policy and that it has not removed the constructive advice form from Young s personnel file Johnson con tended that the notice was given to Young because of his belligerent behavior and because he wanted something in writing The notice, however, makes no reference to Young s alleged inappropriate behavior Analysis I find that the issuance of the constructive advice form to Young resulted from a unilateral change in break policy by Johnson and Dunegan as the break policy practice had previously allowed restroom breaks during nonbreaktime This unilateral change in policy occurred without notice to and bargaining by the Union and vio lates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act and the issuance of the constructive advice form to Young pursuant there to was similarly unlawful in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act I reject Respondents contention that the constructive advice form related to Young s inappropri ate comments Production Plated Plastics 254 NLRB 560 565-566 (1981) It should be noted that I do not find by this decision that Respondent is precluded from monitor ing restroom use and taking appropriate action to stem abuse if warranted by the circumstances However I do not find that Respondent presented sufficient evidence in this case to show abuse by Young It is obvious that if employees were to routinely take substantial periods of time in addition to their 15 minute per hour warmup breaks and their morning and afternoon breaks that they would spend barely over half of their time actually working and nothing in this decision should be construed as warranting such a result D The Elimination of Job Progression for Mechanics in the Maintenance and Forklift Departments This alleged violation concerns the method of progres lion from mechanic III (helper) to mechanic II to me chanic I (or leadman in the forklift department ) and the maintenance department The General Counsel contends that the movement from mechanic III to II to I positions 746 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD has been accomplished by the employees gaining expert ence on the job and qualifying for the higher position on the basis of merit similar to the manner in which an ap prentice becomes a journeyman Respondent contends that employees have only moved from mechanic III to II positions to fill existing vacancies in mechanic I positions when they occurred Former Chief Steward Kenneth Bailey testified that in 1978 he met with Godfrey Bennett, the chief spokesman for the Respondent, following the recall of employees after a strike and at that time Bailey raised the question of three employees who had complained to him as the union steward that they had been in the position of main tenance mechanics and had not been upgraded from the lower level to a higher level When Bailey raised this grievance on behalf of the employees, he was told that the determination was made by the discretion of the foreman as to whether an employee was qualified to be upgraded Bailey further testified that the management representatives at that meeting made no mention of any need for there to be openings to promote into Bailey also testified that he had never been informed in his role as chief union steward for 10 years that management contended there must be an opening in a mechanic I or II position for either a mechanic III in the maintenance department or the forklift department helper (essentially a forklift mechanic III) to move up to a mechanic II or I) Forklift Department Leadman Reggie Hatley testified that on several occasions in his position as leadman he recommended to management that forklift helpers be up graded to mechanic II or I positions in his department and that they were subsequently upgraded by manage ment on his recommendation Prior to the 6 month period preceding the hearing there had not been a fore man in the forklift department Several employees (Bailey, Hatley, Leon Person, and Johnny Davis) tests fled concerning their understanding that upgrades within the mechanic line of progression were made on the basis of merit On February 4, 1988, Respondent posted a mechanic III position for the maintenance department Both Hatley and Johnny Davis (a leadman in the produce depart ment) bid on this position that actually paid less than their current jobs as the maintenance mechanic I post tion to which they expected to be upgraded more than their current positions However, both Hatley and Davis were advised by Supervisor James Pate that their pro gression would not be certain and would depend on whether Respondent needed a higher rated position in this department Steward John LeGrande testified that in 1986 he had bid on a maintenance mechanic III job in the bakery and had been told by Supervisor Cliff Stokes that the job would always be a maintenance III position and would not progress LeGrande told Stokes that in the past there had been upgrading in these jobs from a position III to II to I Stokes then made a phone call and returned and told LeGrande that the job would progress as it had in the past Employee Spencer McDowell took that position and later progressed to a mechanic I I credit the above unrebutted testimony of Bailey Hatley Person, Davis and LeGrande After their discussions with Pate both Hatley and Davis protested this per ceived change in practice to Director of Distribution Mike Kiser in separate individual meetings Kiser told Davis that the Respondent only needed a mechanic III and if it needed a mechanic II that this job would be posted Hatley initially talked to John Brewer, Respond ent s personnel manager, who told him he could not be lieve it when Hatley told him that upgrades had been made on the basis of merit within the jobs and referred Hatley to Kiser Kiser told Hatley well that s the fork lift shop, we re talking about the maintenance depart ment The records bear out Hatley s testimony concern ing upgrades within departments were made without job postings Similarly Hatley also testified that on March 9 1988, he recommended to Supervisor James Pate Leon Person for progression to a mechanic II classification in the forklift department from his current forklift helper (mechanic III) position which he held since September 1987 Pate said he would get back to Person and on April 8 Pate told Person that he had spoken to Kiser and that Person would not become a mechanic II as ev erything was at a standstill but that there could be a pos sibility of progression if some new equipment came in Person then talked to Kiser who told him they were going to start posting jobs as they needed them Neither Pate nor Kiser told Hatley or Person that Person was not qualified to progress Brewer and Kiser both conced ed at the hearing that this was the first time (in Septem ber 1987) when a forklift helper job had been designated as a nonprogression job It is also clear and undisputed that neither the Union nor Person informed in September 1987 that the job was a nonprogression job Kiser contended at the hearing that there is a calling placed on the number of mechanic I positions and that in the past there had always been a vacancy in forklift me chanic I or II positions on all occasions when an em ployee had progressed through the maintenance or fork lift lines of promotion and that when there were no va canoes in the grade I positions no employee progressed Kiser conceded that there was no written document tndi cating any ceiling on the mechanic I positions and that the Union had never been notified of any ceiling thereon but Respondent relied on charts prepared by Kiser show ing the actual number of employees in various mechanic classifications for several years in support of its conten tion that there had always been a ceiling on mechanic I positions Analysis I credit the testimony of the employees as set out above, I find that the General Counsel has demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence that Respondent had a past practice of promoting and upgrading its me chanic III employees in the maintenance department to mechanics II and I on the basis of merit and its forklift helpers in the forklift department to mechanics II and I on the basis of merit I further find that this past practice was changed without notices to the Union in February and March 1988 when the Respondent initially acted on this by informing employees that they would be promot ed only as openings arose in the mechanic I positions I find the charts prepared by Respondent do not support HARRIS TEETER SUPER MARKETS its contention that progression within the maintenance and forklift lines of promotions from the mechanic III and forklift helper positions has ever been limited by a definite number of openings in the mechanic I position It is also undisputed that the Union received no notice of the unilateral change prior to its implementation in Feb ruary and March 1988 I find that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, by the imple mentation of this unilateral change without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain concerning it and by the consequent denial of promotion to Leon Person See Litton Precision Products 156 NLRB 555, 556 fn 1 (1966), and Allied Production Corp, 218 NLRB 1246 (1975) V THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE The unfair labor practices as found in section IV, above, in connection with the business of Respondent as found in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and sub stantial relationship to trade, traffic and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor dis putes obstructing the free flow of commerce CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent Harris Teeter Super Markets, Inc is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 204, affiliated with United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act All employees employed by Respondent at its Char lotte, North Carolina distribution center and bakery including leadmen, dispatchers warehouse clerical employees drivers fork lift maintenance employees refrigeration mechanics and regular part time em ployees excluding office clerical employees mana genal employees professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act 4 Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by its unilateral promulgation of its sexual harass ment policy, by dealing directly with its salvage dock employees concerning a 4 day workweek, by unilaterally instituting a policy of deducting restroom time from scheduled breaktime, and by issuing discipline pursuant thereto to employee William Young Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally eliminating the previous upgrade progression in its me chanic classification on the basis of merit and by denying Leon Person a promotional upgrade to mechanic II REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer tarn violations of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain 747 affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act and post the appropriate notice It is recommended that Respondent be ordered to re scind each of the unilateral changes found unlawful above, give notice to and on request bargain with the Union before instituting any changes in its employees wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ ment and, if agreement is reached, embody it in a signed agreement It is further recommended that Respondent promote its employees Leon Person to mechanic II and make him whole for any loss of wages or benefits3 sus tamed by him since March 9 1988 , with interest as com puted in New Horizons for the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 4 It is further recommended that Respondent re scind and remove from its files the constructive advice form issued to Williams Young and advise him in writing thereof and that the advice form will not be used against him in the future On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record , I issue the following recommend ed5 ORDER The Respondent , Harris Teeter Super Markets, Inc, Charlotte, North Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 204, affiliated with United Food and Commercial Workers Internation al Union, AFL-CIO, CLC as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit below by unilaterally promulgating a sexual harassment policy, by dealing directly with its unit employees con cerning 4 day workweek, by unilaterally instituting changes in its break policy and issuing a constructive advice form to its break policy and issuing by construc tive advice form to its employee William Young and by unilaterally eliminating job progression for mechanics in its maintenance and forklift departments and denying a promotion to mechanic II to its employee Leon Person The appropriate unit is All employees employed by Respondent at its Char lotte North Carolina distribution center bakery in cluding leadmen dispatchers warehouse clerical employees, drivers fork lift maintenance employees refrigeration mechanics and regular part time em ployees excluding office clerical employees, mana s See Kraft Plumbing & Heating 252 NLRB 891 (1980) Merryweather Optical Co 240 NLRB 1213 1216 fn 7 (1979) and American Cleaning Co 291 NLRB 399 (1988) * Under New Horizons interest is computed at the short term Federal rate for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621 Interest accrued before 1 January 1987 (the effective date of the amendment) shall be computed as in Florida Steel Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977) See Ogle Protection Service 183 NLRB 682 (1970) 5 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 put poses 748 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD genal employees, professional employees guards and supervisors as defined in the Act (b) 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) Rescind its unilaterally promulgated sexual harass ment policy (b) Promote Leon Person to the position of mechanic II in its forklift department and make him whole for any loss of earnings and benefits sustained by him with inter est as set out in the remedy section of the decision (c) Rescind the constructive advice form issued to em ployees William Young and remove from its M es any reference to the disciplinary action and notify him in writing of this and that such constructive advice form will not be used as a basis for future personnel action concerning him (d) Give notice to the Union of any purposed changes in the wages, hours, terms, and conditions of its unit em ployees and on request bargain with the Union concern ing them and, if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed agreement (e) Post at its Indian Trail Charlotte, North Carolina facility copies of the attached notice marked Appen dix 6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 11, after being signed by the Respondents authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are cus tomanly posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered de faced, or covered by any 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 6 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 'The General Counsels unopposed motion to correct the transcript is noted and correct APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES 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 bargain collectively with United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 204, affiliated with United Food and Commercial Work ers International Union AFL-CIO, CLC as the exclu sive bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit below by unilaterally promulgating a sexual harassment policy, by dealing directly with its unit employees concerning a 4 day workweek by unilat erally instituting changes in its break policy and issuing a constructive advice form to its employee William Young, and by unilaterally eliminating job progression for me chanics in its maintenance and forklift departments and denying a promotion to mechanic II to its employee Leon Person The appropriate unit is All employees employed by us at our Charlotte, North Carolina distribution center and bakery in cluding leadmen, dispatchers, warehouse clerical employees, drivers, forklift maintenance employees, refrigeration mechanics and regular part time em ployees, excluding office clerical employees, mana genal employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL notify United Food and Commercial Work ers Union Local 204 affiliated with United Food and Commercial Workers International Union AFL-CIO CLC of any proposed changes in the wages hours, and terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the above described unit and on request bargain con cerning the changes and, if an agreement is reached embody it in a written agreement for our employees rep resented by the Union in the appropriate bargaining unit WE WILL rescind the sexual harassment policy unilat erally promulgated by us on October 19, 1987 WE WILL immediately promote Leon Person to me chanic II in the forklift department and WE WILL make him whole for all loss of earnings an benefits sustained by him by reason of our unlawful refusal to promote him, with interest WE WILL rescind the disciplinary constructive advice form issued to employee William Young and remove from our files of any reference thereto and WE WILL notify him in writing that this has been done and that constructive advice form shall not be used as the basis for any future disciplinary actions against the employees HARRIS TEETER SUPER MARKETS, INC