Retail Store Employees Union Local 214

RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 214 Retail Store Employees Union Local 214, affiliated with United Food & Commercial Workers In- ternational Union, AFL-CIO & CLC and Pick- N-Save Warehouse Foods, Inc. Cases 30-CP-63 and 30-CP-65 September 29, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MiEMiBERS JENKINS ANt PEN I.I.tO On July 21, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent, the Gen- eral Counsel, and the Charging Party each filed ex- ceptions and a supporting brief, Respondent filed a reply brief to the exceptions of the General Coun- sel and the Charging Party, and the Charging Party filed an answering brief to Respondent's ex- ceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Retail Store Employees Union Local 214, affiliated with United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO & CLC, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, its offi- cers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENtI 01 THI. CASE RoBERT A. GIANNASI, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, on May 12 and 13, 1980. The consolidated complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act by picketing from March 3 to 14, 1980, and again from April 11, 1980, to the present with an object of seeking to represent employees of the Charging Party (hereafter the Employer or Pick-N-Save) despite an election among the employees which Respondent lost on February 7, 1980. The Regional Director also set aside a settlement agreement, which had halted the initial picketing, on the ground that the April picketing breached the settlement 252 NLRB No. 86 agreement. Respondent denies the essential allegations of the complaint. The parties submitted briefs. Based on the entire record herein, the briefs of the parties. and the testimony of the witnesses and their de- meanor, I make the following: FINDING(S Ot- FcI I. H FI BUSINSS OF Ti. EMPI OYE'R Pick-N-Save, a Wisconsin corporation, with headquar- ters located in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, is engaged in the retail grocery business. It has stores in several locations throughout the State of Wisconsin, including a store lo- cated on West Johnson Street in Fond du Lac, Wiscon- sin, herein called the Fond du Lac store. During the past calendar year, Pick-N-Save realized gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and, during the same period, pur- chased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Wisconsin. Ac- cordingly., I find, as the Employer admits, that Pick-N- Save, is now, and has been, at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6), and (7) of the Act. 11. TIHE .AHOR ORGANIZATION Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. IHI- UNFAIR L.ABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts Roundy's Inc., the parent of the Charging Party, has collective-bargaining agreements with other locals of the United Food and Commercial Workers, including Local 444 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, covering Pick-N-Save stores in those locations. Pick-N-Save stores are essential- ly warehouse or discount food stores. Roundy's has no contracts with Respondent for any stores located in Re- spondent's geographical area. The record shows that one other Pick-N-Save store is located in the jurisdiction of Respondent, in Shawano, Wisconsin. That store opened several years ago as a nonunion store. Respondent did not picket the Shawano store when it opened. Construction on the Fond du Lac store, the one in- volved herein, began in late 1978 or early 1979. Equip- ment began to be moved into the store in July and August 1979 and the store was stocked in September 1979. The store opened on October 9, 1979. It is located in a shopping center in Fond du Lac. Prior to the construction of the Fond du Lac store, Mike McGee, vice president of the corporate store divi- sion of Roundy's, had several conversations with Ken Geroux, an officer of Local 444 in Milwaukee, about rec- ognizing the Union as representative of its Fond du Lac employees. The discussions were apparently inconclu- sive. Geroux also asked that McGee meet with Respond- ent President Richard P. Eiden about a contract for the Fond du L.ac store. McGee refused. Eiden tried unsuc- cessfully, on several occasions, to telephone McGee. Sometime in September Eiden told Geroux that he was going to picket the Fond du Lac store when it opened to 547 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD notify the public that Pick-N-Save did not have a con- tract with Respondent. On September 27, 1979, Eiden wrote McGee and told him that Respondent would commence "informational picketing and handbilling" at the Fond du Lac store on October 4, 1979. The store was to open on October 4, but the opening was set back a few days. The letter does not disclaim a recognitional objective. When the store actually opened, on October 9, 1979, the Union had from four to six pickets in front of the store. One picket sign read as follows: Our only dispute is with Pick-N-Save, Local 214, AFL-CIO. Another sign read: Pick-N-Save does not employ members of this Union, Retail Store Employees Union Local 214, AFL-CIO. A third sign read: Pick-N-Save does not have a contract with Local 214, AFL-CIO. Handbills were also distributed. The picketing and hand- billing continued until about November 10, 1979. On the first day of the picketing, McGee went out on the picket line and exchanged words with one picketer, who turned out to be Union President Eiden. McGee told Eiden that he believed the picketing was illegal be- cause he had asked for recognition through Ken Geroux from Milwaukee. Eiden did not respond.' On October 12, 1979, McGee filed an election petition and a hearing was set on the matter for October 31, 1979. On October 19, Eiden sent another letter to McGee asserting that the Union's picketing was informa- tional and that the Union disclaimed any interest in rep- resenting the Fond du Lac employees. Sometime in October, McGee called Ken Geroux and asked him what he could do to have the pickets re- moved. Geroux said he had to have a contract with the Union. McGee refused unless there was an election. McGee also told Geroux that he was going to have him subpenaed to testify at the representation hearing that he had asked for recognition for the Union. Geroux ex- pressed a desire not to testify. He also said that he was no longer involved in the matter and that the Interna- tional Union was now involved. Geroux did not testify in the instant case. The October 31 hearing was postponed until Novem- ber 12. In the meantime, McGee and Geroux arranged to set up a meeting with Eiden in Milwaukee. In early No- vember, such a meeting took place in Milwaukee, Wis- consin, in Roundy's executive dining room. The meeting, which started at or about 2:30 p.m., included McGee, Geroux, and Eiden. McGee asked how he could get rid of the pickets. Eiden told him the only way to get rid of the pickets was to recognize the Union "through a card I The above is based on the credited testimony of McGee. Eiden testi- fied about the conversation, but did not specifically contradict or deny McGee's testimony concerning Geroux' request for recognition and Eiden's failure to respond. check," McGee objected, and insisted on an election. After some discussion, McGee offered to give the Union free access to the store to talk to employees if Eiden agreed to an election. McGee also agreed tentatively to an agreement if the Union won the election. He also stated that if the Union lost the election, he expected Eiden to "disappear for a year," Eiden agreed to McGee's proposal. The agreement included a removal of the pickets and the withdrawal of the Employer's elec- tion petition. It was also agreed that McGee would have one meeting with the employees to explain why union officials were being given access to the store and why the pickets were removed.2 Following the meeting, the picketing ceased and the Regional Director of Region 30 issued an order with- drawing the notice of hearing and approving the with- drawal of petition. Thereafter, the Union undertook to collect signed authorization cards on the store premises with the permission of McGee who also gave the Union a list of employees' names, addresses, and phone num- bers. In a letter to McGee about this time Eiden ex- pressed the view that "our ultimate goal is to develope [sic] a productive and mutually satisfactory collective bargaining relationship." After collecting a sufficient number of cards the Union filed an election petition and an election was scheduled and conducted on February 7, 1980. On February 4, 1979, in the course of its campaign, Respondent distributed a letter to employees of the Fond du Lac store which stated in part: We want to represent the Fond du Lac employees of Pick-N-Save. Our letter of November 8, 1979 (a copy of which is attached), clearly establishes our interest. So there is no misunderstanding: Our com- mitment to the employees of Pick-N-Save is firm . . . Anyone who doubts the commitment of this Union doesn't know the history of Retail Store Em- ployees Union Local No. 214. The Union lost the election of February 7 by a vote of 22 to 13 with 2 challenged ballots. On February 15, 1980, the election results were certified. By letter dated February 14, 1980, the Union filed objections to the elec- tion which were received by the Milwaukee Regional Office on February 19 and rejected as untimely. On Feb- ruary 19, however, the Union filed an unfair labor prac- tice charge based on its objections. The charge was des- 2 The above is based on the credited testimony of McGee who im- pressed me as a much more reliable and truthful witness than Eiden. Eiden's account of this conversation is self-serving. He was more interest- ed in tailoring his testimony to support a litigation theory rather than giving a candid account of the facts I note particularly that he attempted to conceal contacts with Geroux prior to November 1979 concerning the opening of the Fond du Lac store Based on Eiden's lack of candor and his demeanor generally I find that I cannot credit his testimony on any controversial point in this proceeding, particularly concerning the con- versations he had with McGee. In addition, of course, I reject as self- serving and without any significant probative value Eiden's disavowals of any recognitional object for the Union's picketing in this case. 548 RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 214 ignated Case 30-CA-5665. Subsequently, the Union filed amended charges against the employer.3 On February 8, the day following the election, Re- spondent sought authorization from its International to resume its picketing of Pick-N-Save. Respondent Presi- dent Eiden prepared and signed the "request for authori- zation" form. The form reveals the following question and answer: 12. What are the major differences between the parties? Employer refused to accept the union as he had promised a year ago when he opened the Shawano, Wisconsin facility with no problem. On February 25, 1980, the Union sent McGee a letter stating that the Union would commence "informational picketing" at the Fond du Lac store on March 3 to pro- test the Employer's unfair labor practices. McGee met with Eiden on February 29, 1980, in Mil- waukee. They were alone. Eiden told McGee he was being picketed again because of unfair labor practices. McGee denied the unfair labor practices. They discussed why the Union had lost the election. Finally, McGee asked whether Eiden wanted a union contract. Accord- ing to McGee, whom I credit as a candid and reliable witness, Eiden "looked at me and smiled and said, no." McGee then asked if Eiden wanted a card check and Eiden responded, "Yes, but you said that, I didn't." McGee told Eiden he would never get a card check. McGee's testimony is supported by contemporaneous notes which he took of the conversation. Eiden did not controvert McGee's testimony concerning this conversa- tion. Picketing resumed at the Fond du Lac store on March 3. It lasted until March 14. The picket signs stated as fol- lows: "Pick-N-Save Warehouse Foods, Inc. commits unfair labor practices" and "Unfair Labor Practices Vio- late Federal Labor Law." On March 4, 1980, the employer filed a charge-Case 30-CP-63-alleging that the Union's picketing, which began the day before, violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. On March 11, 1980, at or about 1:30 p.m., a delivery man employed by a third party employer, Bill Vander- kin, Jr., made a delivery of produce to the Fond du Lac store. He went to the front of the Pick-N-Save store and observed three pickets. He approached one of the pick- ets, Richard Eiden, Jr., the son of Union President Eiden, and asked him why they were picketing. Eiden answered that "they wanted the Union in the store." Eiden was holding a picket sign. He also said that the Union could "get in" and "help them . . . make more money for themselves." Young Eiden did not testify; however, the record shows not only that he was the union president's son, but also that he was, on a "part time basis," a business representative of the Union. On March 14, 1980, Respondent and the employer en- tered into a settlement agreement, approved by the Re- 3 In one of the charges, dated March 11. 1980, Respondent alleged that the Employer refused to bargain in good faith with Respondent and de- manded a bargaining order gional Director, disposing of both the charge against Re- spondent and that against the Employer in Case 30-CA- 5665. Respondent agreed, in Case 30-CP-63, not to picket the employer with an unlawful recognitional object for a period of 1 year from March 14 and not to engage in such conduct "when Respondent did not win a Board election in the proceeding 12 months." On April 4, 1980, the Union wrote still another letter to McGee notifying him that the Union would com- mence "informational" picketing and handbilling on April 11, 1980, to "urge prospective customers . . . not to patronize Pick-N-Save," but instead to shop at stores whose employees are covered by a contract with Re- spondent. Another letter sent that day disavowed any in- terest in representing the employees in the Fond du Lac store. On April 7, the employer filed a charge in Case 30- CP-65 alleging that the above letters constituted a viola- tion of Section 8(b)(7)(B) and the settlement agreement of March 4, 1980.4 On April 11, 1980, the Union began picketing the Fond du Lac store once again. The picket signs stated as follows: Our only dispute is with Pick-N-Save, Local 214, AFL-CIO. Pick-N-Save does not employ members of this Union, Retail Store Employees Union Local 214, AFL-CIO. Pick-N-Save does not have a labor contract with Local 214, AFL-CIO. The picketing continued until the date of the hearing in this case. There is uncontradicted testimony that one of the picketers on April II11, International Representative Bob Hamilton, responded as follows to a customer's question as to why the Union was picketing: "[W]e aren't picket- ing because of them, pointing to the store [Pick-N-Save] but because of him, pointing to [Store Manager Michael Barth]. And that he is a liar, he threatens his employees. He's a thief, he was fired from Kohl's for stealing and shacking up with checkers." The customer turned to Barth and asked if it was true and he denied it. On April 14, 1980, the Acting Regional Director for Region 30 notified Respondent by letter that the settle- ment agreement of March 14, 1980, in Case 30-CP-63 had been set aside and that a complaint would issue cov- ering both that case and the picketing arising from the new Case 30-CP-63. The picketing had not ceased when the hearing was held in this case and I have not been notified that it has ceased as of the issuance of this Decision.5 4 Also on April 7. 1980, the Regional Director dismissed a charge filed by Respondent on March 25, 1980. in Case 30-CA-5736 wherein Re- spondent had alleged that the employer violated Section 8(a),l of the Act by priomising an increase in wages. s The General Counsel's application for an injunction under Sec 10l1) of the Act was rejected by the United Slates District Court for the East- ern District of Wisconsin 549 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Discussion and Analysis The ii.itial question in this case is whether the April 1980 picketing violated the March 14, 1980, settlement agreement which prohibited recognitional picketing within 12 months of a valid Board election in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. There is no dispute that the picketing occurred within 12 months of a valid Board election. Thus, the only question is whether an object of the April 1980 picketing was recognitional. I find that it was and thus that Respondent violated the terms of the settlement agreement as well as Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. Accordingly, I also find that the settlement agreement was properly set aside and that the Board may reach the earlier picketing which was the subject matter of the settlement agreement. That earlier picketing was likewise violative of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. The April picketing was ostensibly informational pick- eting. However, the signs utilized by Respondent protest- ed that Pick-N-Save did not have a contract with Re- spondent and did not employ members of Respondent. Such language leaves no doubt of a recognitional object. See Local Union 449, International Brotherhood of Electri- cal Workers AFL-CIO (Sam M. Melson d/b/a Sam Melson, General Contractor), 138 NLRB 460, 462 (1962); Local 445, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Colony Liquor Distributors, Inc., Colonel Carriers, Inc.), 145 NLRB 263 (1963). See also Local Joint Executive Board of Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Inter- national Union of Long Beach and Orange County; Culi- nary Alliance Local No. 681 (Crown Cafeteria), 135 NLRB 1183, 1185 (1962), enfd. 327 F.2d 351 (9th Cir. 1964). The background and circumstances of the April pick- eting support my finding, based on the picket sign lan- guage, that the picketing was for an unlawful objective. This evidence commencing from the opening of the Fond du Lac store in October 1979 may be utilized to shed light on the April picketing, notwithstanding the March 14, 1980, settlement agreement. See Northern California District Council of Hod Carriers and Common Laborers of America, AFL-CIO, etc. (Joseph's Landscaping Service), 154 NLRB 1384 (1965), enfd. 389 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1968). Thus, in November 1979-well before the election- Eiden told McGee that he could get rid of the pickets which had appeared in front of the Fond du Lac store since its opening by agreeing to a card check. The par- ties compromised, and, thereafter, Respondent engaged in an organizational campaign which culminated in the employees' rejecting Respondent in a Board-conducted election. The picket sign language in April 1980-2 months after the election-was exactly the same as that which accompanied the picketing in October and No- vember 1979 when Respondent was clearly seeking rec- ognition. Other evidence strongly supports the finding, which I make, that Respondent never altered, as at least one of its objects for picketing, that Pick-N-Save recog- nize it as bargaining agent for the Fond du Lac employ- ees. Thus, although the March 1980 picketing was osten- sibly to protest alleged unfair labor practices, Respond- ent sought authorization for the picketing by telling its International Union that Pick-N-Save had failed to "accept the union" as it had promised. Moreover, shortly after Respondent sent a carefully worded letter describ- ing its picketing as informational, Respondent president Eiden met with McGee and conceded that he wanted a "card check." Further, Business Representative Eiden, who was on the picket line on March 11, 1980, admitted to a neutral employee that the purpose of the picketing was for Respondent to "get in" and help the employees "[m]ake more money for themselves." Indeed, in an amended unfair labor practice charge filed on March II, Respondent charged the employer with having failed to bargain in good faith and demanded a bargaining order.6 In these circumstances, I find that the March 1980 picketing had a recognitional object and that the evi- dence surrounding such picketing offers further support that the April 1980 picketing was recognitional. Since the April picketing was undertaken only 2 months after a valid Board election, such picketing not only violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act, but also violated the settle- ment agreement of March 14, 1980. As I have mentioned above, the March 1980 picketing was recognitional, and, since it took place only I month after a valid Board election, it was clearly violative of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. That Respondent ostensi- bly was protesting alleged unfair labor practices of Re- spondent is no defense for it is well settled that the Board is not required to accept a respondent's self-serv- ing declarations as to the motives for its conduct 7 and a violation is established if an object of the picketing was, as here, unlawful. 8 Respondent defends the April picketing-and perhaps its March picketing-on the ground that it was "informa- tional." That word has meliorative connotations from the standpoint of Respondent. All picketing is informational. But the question here is whether the picketing was re- cognitional. Simply to call picketing "informational" does not make it so in such a way as to rule out a recog- nitional objective. I find that, in this case, an object of Respondent's picketing was recognitional whether or not an object was also to provide information. In its brief, Respondent relies on N.L.R.B. v. Local 239, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 340 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1965), in support of its argument that the picketing herein was solely informational and had no re- cognitional object. That case is distinguishable on its facts. First of all, the language on the picket signs in Local 239 was different than that in this case. The signs simply proclaimed that the employer was nonunion and alleged that this fact jeopardized union standards. Here, the language on the signs clearly demonstrated a recog- nitional object. Moreover, the court in Local 239 reject- In reaching any conclusion concerning Respondent's recognitional objective I do not rely on the statements of Ken Geroux, an official of Respondent's sister local in Milwaukee. 7 International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (Coed Collar Co.), 137 NLRB 1698. 1699-1700(1962). See Bartenders. Hotel. Restaurant and Cafeteria Employees Union Local 36 affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders In- ternational Union. AFL-CIO (Action One Inc.). 222 NLRB 821, 826 (1976). 550 RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEES UNI()N LOCAL 214 ed the oard's finding concerning "the sole occurrence in even arguably union activity which could be said to give a recognitional color to the picketing" and held in- stead that an objectionable statement was not made by an agent of the union. HIere there was significant other evi- dence of a recognitional objective from Respondent and its agents." CONCI USIONS 01 LAW I. Respondent violated the settlement agreement of March 14, 1980. 2. By picketing the Pick-N-Save Fond du Lac store on and after March 3, 1980, with an object of forcing or re- quiring Pick-N-Save to recognize or bargain with Re- spondent as the representative of its employees, even though Respondent was not currently certified as the representative of such employees, and even though a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act had been conducted in an appropriate unit of these employees on February 7, 1980, and the results certified on February 15, 1980, Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(b)(7)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THI R MI-I)Y In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practice found and that it take certain affirmative action. The General Counsel makes a conclusory request for a broad remedial order banning Respondent from engaging in recognitional picketing, citing only San Francisco Joint Executive Board of Culinarv Workers, etc. (Fobodmaker, Inc. d/b/a Jack in the Box), 203 NLRB 744 (1973).10 The General Counsel does not describe what kind of order he seeks. If the General Counsel seeks an order against all recognitional picketing under Section 8(b)(7), the request itself is too broad. The violation here in- volved Section 8(b)(7)(B). An injunction against all re- cognitional picketing violative of the Act would not be reasonably related to the violation found herein. If the General Counsel seeks an order against all future 8(b)(7)(B) violations against "any employer," " the re- quest is more properly tailored to the violation found here. Yet I do not believe such an order is warranted in the circumstances of this case. It is true that a settlement agreement was breached, that two separate picketing in- cidents were found violative of the Act, that Respond- 9 In its brief. Respondent has apparently abandoned its earlier argu- ment that the informational proviso of Section (b)(7)(C) of the Act should be applied to an 8(hb(7)(B) case. Such argument has no merit. See Local 445, Internarional Broirherxd of earrnsterr erc. (Colony Liquor Div- ,riburors. Inc.), 145 NLRB 263, 266. fn 6 (1963) 'o The Board's broad order in that case--"hich dealt with Sec 8(b)(7XC), not (B) of the Act, as here-was not enforced by the District of Columbia Circuit See San Francisco Joint Fxecuivw Board of Culinaur Workers .v NL.RB. 501 F2d 794, 801 (DC Cir 1974) m l See San rancisco Local Joint .recutivc Board o Cuhnar, W4orAirs. Bartenders. otel, Motel and Club Srvic W4orAcrs. A.41-CIO l4ociati'd U'non Street Resiaurants). 201 NRB 36, 41 (1973), supplemental deci- sion, 202 NLRB 726 (1973) The District (lf Columbia Circuit. however. refused to enforce such a broad order in San Francico Joint Erxecutive Board of Culinary Horkers . L,. R B, upra ent's picketing was deliberate, and that its defense was clearly without merit. But there is no evidence that Re- spondent has demonstrated a proclivity to violate Sec- tion 8(b)(7)(B) or that other employers may be targeted for the same treatment from Respondent. Indeed, it ap- pears that a significant motivating factor in Respondent's conduct was its view that, since the employer recognized a sister local in Milwaukee, it would capitulate to pres- sure in a nearby area. For these reasons I shall not rec- ommend a broad order but shall order Respondent to cease and desist from picketing the employer herein in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act in accordance with the traditional Board remedy for such violation. See Retail Store Employees' Union. Local 692, etc. (Irins, Inc.), 134 NLRB 686. 690-692 (1961). Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER' 2 The Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket, Pick-N-Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., for a period of I year from the date the picketing found un- lawful herein ceases, where an object thereof is to force or require Pick-N-Save Warehouse Foods, Inc.. to recog- nize or bargain collectively with Respondent or to force or require the employees of Pick-N-Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., to accept or select Respondent as their col- lective-bargaining representative. (b) Picketing, or causing to be picketed, or threatening to picket Pick-N-Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., for any of the above objects, where within the preceding 12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act has been conducted which Respondent did not win, 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its business offices and meeting halls, including all places where notices to its members and agents are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'3 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by an authorized rep- resentative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respond- ent immediatly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi- al. 2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.4h of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its rindings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections hereto shall be deemed waived fr all purposes :- In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted hy Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu. ant to Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order ( f the National Labor Relations Board" 551 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Deliver or mail signed copies of said notice to the Regional Director of Region 30 for the information of and posting by, if willing, Pick-N-Save Warehouse Foods, Inc. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NorTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to present evidence and state their positions, the National Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has or- dered us to post this notice. WI Willt. NOT, for a period of 1 year from the end of the picketing found unlawful by the Board, picket, or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket Pick-N-Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., where an object thereof is to force or require Pick-N-Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., to recognize or bargain col- lectively with us, or to force or require its employ- ees to accept or select us as their collective-bargain- ing agent. Wl Wll. NOT picket, or cause to be picketed, or threaten to picket, Pick-N-Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., where an object is to force or require Pick-N- Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., to recognize or bar- gain collectively with us, or to force or require its employees to accept or select us as their collective- bargaining representative where a valid election which we did not win has been conducted by the National Labor Relations Board among the employ- ees of Pick-N-Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., within the preceding 12 months. RETAIl. STORE EMPI.oY.tES UNION LOCAL 214, AIFILIATEI) WITH UNITI:D FOOD & COMMERCIAI. WORKERS INTERNAIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO & CLC 552