Butera Finer Foods

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1989

296 N.L.R.B. 950 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

950 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Joe B . Foods, Inc. d/b/a Butera Finer Foods and
UFCW Local 546, affiliated with United Food
& Commercial Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, CLC. Case 13-CA-26866
September 29, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS
On February 22, 1989, Administrative Law
Judge Richard L. Denison issued the attached deci-
sion . The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, 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
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
1. In agreeing with the judge that a separate unit
of fish and meat department employees is an appro-
priate bargaining unit , we find that the Respondent
has failed to show that this historic unit is no
longer appropriate. The meat and fish employees
have a separate community of interest from the
other Ogden store employees. The record reflects
that the employees' job functions require special-
ized skills. Although 70 to 80 percent of the meat
sold at the Respondent's facility is boxed, the addi-
tion of "rails" to the meat department requires the
employees to process full fore and hind quarters of
meat. The employees cut, package, and price the
meat and cut to order for customers. Meat and fish
department employees work exclusively in their
department, which is separately supervised. There
is no evidence of interchange between meat and
fish employees and other store employees. More-
over, a separate unit composed of meat and fish
employees has been the bargaining unit historically
recognized. Cf. Hall's Super Duper, 281 NLRB
1116 (1986), where the Board found the petitioned-
I The Respondent excepted to the j udge 's failure to allow evidence on
the prevalence of multistore bargaining units in the Chicago area. After
considering the Respondent 's offer of proof, we find that the exclusion of
the evidence was not prejudicial . The Respondent contended that the
only appropriate bargaining unit encompasses all three of its supermar-
kets . However, when the Union demanded recognition, only the Ogden
store was in existence As there was only one store in existence at that
time, evidence of multistore bargaining units is not relevant.
We find the Respondent 's allegations that the judge exhibited extreme
prejudice throughout the hearing to be without merit After considering
the record and the decision , we can find no evidence that the judge pre-
judged the case , made prejudicial rulings, or demonstrated bias against
the Respondent
The judge inadvertently miscited Big Y SupermarAets. The citation
should read Big Y Supermarkets , 161 NLRB 1263 ( 1966).
for separate unit of meat department employees tb
be inappropriate . In that case , the meat department
employees shared common supervision with the
other store employees and did not perform tradi-
tional meatcutting work. The meat department had
been represented as a separate unit, but the em-
ployees had voted to decertify the union 2 years
before the petition was filed.
We also find Indianapolis Mack Sales, 288 NLRB
1123 (1988), distinguishable from the present case.2
On remand from the Seventh Circuit Court of Ap-
peals , the Board concluded that a separate unit of
service employees, appropriate under the predeces-
sor, was inappropriate under the successor. The
Board held that the respondent had satisfied its
burden of showing the historic unit was no longer
appropriate because circumstances had changed
since the successor employer had taken over the
business . Interaction and transfers between the em-
ployees of the parts and service departments in-
creased, and the successor employer began training
parts and service employees together to familiarize
them with new stock. The parts department em-
ployees began to perform semiskilled work on the
trucks that had previously been done by the serv-
ice department employees.
Here, the successor employer, Joseph Butera, op-
erates the Ogden store meat and fish department in
the same manner as the predecessor employer. The
Ogden meat and fish employees continue to utilize
traditional meatcutting skills . In fact, Butera's in-
stallation of "rails" in the meat department, which
enable the employees to process larger cuts of
meat, has allowed the meat and fish department
employees to utilize their meatcutting skills more
often. Therefore, the separate unit of the Ogden
store meat and fish employees appropriate under
the predecessor employer remains appropriate
under the successor employer.
2. We agree with the judge that Joseph Butera's
impromptu speech on April 24, 1987, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. According to Butera's cred-
ited testimony, Butera told a group of employees
that he had received a letter from the Board stating
the Union had enough votes for "either a vote, or
that they could come right in ." Butera also told the
employees that he was disappointed they did not
give him a chance to put his package together and
give him a little more time to see if his way of
doing things would have worked. Butera said that
£ In NLRB Y Indianapolis Mack Sales, 802 F 2d 280 (7th Cir 1986), the
court rejected the Board 's finding , in 272 NLRB 690 (1984), that a sepa-
rate unit of service department employees was appropriate , on the basis
of the employees' work interests and history of separate bargaining under
the predecessor employer The court remanded the case to the Board for
a unit determination based on community -of-interest factors
296 NLRB No. 123
BUTERA FINER FOODS
even though the Union was going to come in, they
would still have to negotiate a contract, and that
everything would have to be negotiated. He also
stated that he did not know what wage rate the
employees would receive and that negotiations
would probably take 3 to 4 months.
The Board has found similar employer state-
ments to be lawful when made during an organiza-
tional campaign and when, inter alia, they "accu-
rately reflect the obligations and possibilities of the
bargaining process." Clark Equipment Co., 278
NLRB 498, 500 (1986). The Respondent's state-
ments, however, were not made in the context of
an organizational campaign but rather during a
period when the Respondent was failing to fulfill
its obligations as a successor employer to recognize
and bargain with the Union. Thus, the judge found,
and we agree, that on April 21, 1987, just 3 days
earlier , the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by
announcing a pension plan for unit employees. In
addition, we agree with the judge's further finding
that the Respondent again violated Section 8(a)(5)
on the same day it made the speech in issue by ex-
plicitly refusing to bargain with the Union. In these
circumstances, the conclusion is warranted that in
its speech the Respondent was paying only lip
service to its obligation to negotiate with the
Union. The Respondent's reference to the possibili-
ty of a loss of pay cannot be explained as merely
reflecting the normal give and take of the bargain-
ing process when it was the Respondent itself that
was refusing to bargain. Similarly, the Respond-
ent's remark about an extended time period for ne-
gotiations cannot be regarded as simply a lawful
prediction of the course bargaining was likely to
take. Rather, we find, in agreement with the judge,
that in the context of its unlawful refusal to engage
in negotiations with the Union, the Respondent's
statements constitute a threat of reduced wages and
of the futility of the process of collective bargain-
ing.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Joe B.
Foods, Inc. d/b/a Butera Finer Foods, Chicago, Il-
linois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order.
8 Chairman Stephens would not find a violation of Sec 8(a)(1) on the
basis of Joseph Butera 's April 24, 1987 speech , and thus would not adopt
that portion of the recommended Order that requires the Respondent to
cease and desist from threatening employees with loss of wages and other
benefits if they selected the Union as their bargaining agent
Mark A. Spognardi, Esq., for the General Counsel.
951
G. Roger King, Esq. and J. Michael Kota, Esq. (Bricker &
Eckler), of Columbus, Ohio, for the Respondent.
Charles Orlove, Esq. (Jacobs, Burns, Sugerman & Orlove),
of Chicago, Illinios, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD L. DENISON , Administrative Law Judge.
This case was heard in Chicago, Illinois, on August 24-
28, and September 1 and 2, 1987.1 Based on a charge
filed May 4, the complaint, issued June 10, as amended,
alleges that the Respondent is a successor employer
which, since on or about April 16, has refused to recog-
nize and bargain with the Charging Party as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the meat and
fish department employees at Respondent's 3939 W.
Ogden Avenue store, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act. It is also alleged that Respondent unilater-
ally instituted a 401(k) pension plan without notice to or
bargaining with the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5). It is further alleged that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting employees to as-
certain and report and by interrogating employees, con-
cerning their union membership, activities, and sympa-
thies; and by threatening them with loss of wages and
other benefits if they selected the Union as their bargain-
ing agent. Finally, the appropriateness of the unit and the
inclusion or exclusion from that unit of certain employ-
ees and alleged supervisors is in issue.
The Respondent's answer denies the allegations of
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Upon the
entire record in the case, including approximately 1150
of transcript, 700 pages of exhibits, consideration of
briefs filed October 9, and observation of the witnesses, I
make the following2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
Based on the allegations in paragraphs 11(a), (d), (e),
and (f), and III of the complaint, respectively, admitted
in the answer, I find that the Respondent is, and has been
at all times material herein an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act; and that the Charging Party, the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES3
Several years ago The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Company, Inc. closed its Chicago division as a part of
' All dates are in 1987 unless otherwise specified.
2 Counsel for General Counsel 's unopposed motion to correct the tran-
script is granted . Readers of the record should especially note the correc-
tion of the error which reversed the names of counsel for General Coun-
sel and counsel for Respondent wherever they appear in the August 28
transcript of proceedings , pp 898 through 986.
a The facts set forth herein are based on a composite of the credited
aspects of the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits , and consideration
of the logical consistency and inherent probability of the facts found Al-
Continued
952 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their nationwide consolidation program . A subsidiary
company, Super Plus Food Warehouse , was created and
certain former A&P stores in Chicago became the prop-
erty of Super Plus. Among these were the stores located
at 3518 Division Avenue, 4608 Belmont Avenue, and
3939 W. Ogden Avenue, each of which ceased operating
as a full service supermarket and became warehouse op-
erations, wherein customers obtain their groceries from
boxes on warehouse type shelves and forgo certain
amenities , such as bagging , found in the traditional type
supermarket . Each of these stores had its own meat and
fish department whose employees were represented by
the Charging Party on the basis of a single store depart-
mental unit . About 1984, A&P sold its Super Plus Food
stores to CGI Wholesale, Inc., also called Certified Gro-
cers of Illinois, d/b/a Super Plus Warehouse Foods.4
When Certified opened its doors at 3939 W. Ogden
Avenue, it was once again a traditional retail supermar-
ket containing grocery, produce, fish and meat, and
bakery departments . It contained a lunchmeat counter,
but no delicatessen . Certified recognized Local 546 as
representative of each of its meat and fish department
units, and signed separate collective-bargaining agree-
ments for each of those units . The 3939 W. Ogden
Avenue agreement had as its term May 26, 1985, to May
29, 1988.
The meat and fish department at Certified's Ogden
Avenue store prepared and sold a complete line of beef,
pork, lamb, veal , poultry, and fish, supplied almost en-
tirely in boxes by the independent suppliers . For exam-
ple, a company named Henry Putz supplied meat, and
Chicago Fisheries was one of the fish suppliers. The
meat and fish was delivered to the store in trucks, un-
loaded and placed in a cooler room from which it was
taken , as needed , for processing by meat and fish depart-
ment employees . Traditional meat cutting equipment was
utilized, including scrapers , knives, hand saws, band
saws, tenderizer , grinder, wrapping machine, and scales.
Certified's Ogden Avenue store did not process meat
from fore and hind quarters , since it had no rails from
which to hang such large quarters of meat . Certified did
not make its own sausage.
On December 24, 1986 , the State of Illinois issued an
incorporation certificate to Joe B. Foods, Inc., a corpo-
ration formed by Joseph Butera who had left his family's
grocery operations, Butera Foods, to form his own busi-
ness . Although Butera Foods was organized, Joseph
Butera was determined to operate on an unorganized
basis. That same day he purchased from CGI Wholesale,
Inc. (Certified Grocers of Illinois) their three supermar-
kets at 4608 West Belmont Avenue, 3518 West Division
Street , and 3939 W. Ogden Avenue. Shortly thereafter,
Yvonne Harris, Certified's store manager at Ogden
Avenue, distributed Butera Finer Foods' employment ap-
though I may not, in the course of this Decision , refer to all the evi-
dence , it has been weighed and considered, and to the extent that testi-
mony or other evidence not mentioned herein might appear to contradict
the findings of fact , it has not been disregarded , but has been rejected as
incredible , lacking in probative worth , surplusage , or irrelevant In those
instances where I may not have specifically detailed who I have credited,
it is clear from the narrative who has been credited
Hereafter called Certified
plications to store employees at Ogden Avenue, includ-
ing those in the meat department . For example, Harris
told journeyman meatcutter Arthur Bradley to fill the
application out and return it to her. Certified closed its
Ogden Avenue store in the middle of January . As of the
store's closing the following employees were regularly
working in the meat and fish department at Ogden
Avenue.
Tom Ademak
Arthur Bradley
Fred Feller
John Russell
Marilyn Bell
Gus Rodriquez
Emanuel Rodriquez
Market Manager
Journeyman Meatcutter
Journeyman Meatcutter
Journeyman Meatcutter
Wrapper
Fish Man
Fish Man and Wrapper
Each of these Certified employees belonged to the Union
and was included in the bargaining unit.
The Ogden store remained closed until the week of
February 22, while remodeling, rearranging , and other
preparations were performed by the Respondent. It was
during this period that employment interviews were con-
ducted . On February 1, Joseph Butera personally inter-
viewed Certified's Ogden employees in the manager's
office at the store in the presence of Jose Firman, Bu-
tera's selection for Ogden store manager .5 The inter-
views were short. He asked each employee how they felt
about working for him. He told them what the wages
would be, and invited them to work for him . According
to Butera , he had prepared "a little statement ," on which
he based his remarks . He testified that, having considered
the possibility that the Union would seek to organize his
operation , he told each applicant that he did not like the
Union, since he did not like anyone telling him how to
run his store, and planned to operate without one. He
told Arthur Bradley that he was not going to have a
union, and asked if Bradley could "deal with crossing a
picket line if it came to that ." After Bradley had indicat-
ed a willingness to work for Butera under those condi-
tions, Joseph Butera gave him another blank Butera
Finer Foods' application to fill out "for the record."
Bradley filled out the application after the interview had
ended, and turned it in before leaving the store . Butera
told Bradley he would contact him, and that the store
would open at a later time . During the course of these
interviews there was no mention of any intention on the
part of Butera to install a 401(k) pension plan as an em-
ployee benefit.
The Ogden store opened under the auspices of Butera
Finer Foods on February 26 as a full-service retail super-
market . The only significant departmental change was
the addition of a "fresh deli" where employees behind a
counter filled customers' orders with freshly cooked or
sliced meats , potato salad , chicken, and other typical del-
icatessen type products . This area is separate from the
meat and fish department and is serviced by four or five
employees none of whom are regularly assigned to work
in the fish and meat department , which remained located
in the rear of the store in the same position it occupied
5 Firman did not testify
BUTERA FINER FOODS
under Certified's ownership. Butera received 70 to 80
percent of its meat and fish in boxes from which meat
and fish department employees processed it in the same
manner as had been done at Certified, utilizing , for the
most part, the same tools and equipment , much of which
Butera had purchased from Certified when it closed. The
sole significant exception was the addition of rails which
permitted the Butera meat department to process hang-
ing quarters of meat . Butera obtained its meat from basi-
cally the same suppliers as did Certified, such as Forest
Poultry, Jane Provision , Henry Putz , and Sasosy Sau-
sage . In addition , he purchased meat from Certified Gro-
cers, and other independent meat suppliers . In the words
of Joseph Butera, he purchased his meat from the same
suppliers plus others.
In the leading case of Burns Security Services, 406 U.S.
272, 279-281 (1972), the United States Supreme Court
adopted "substantial continuity in the employing enter-
prise" as the test for deciding whether an employer is a
successor who must bargain with the bargaining agent
which represented the employees of its predecessor.
Whether this test has been satisfied is determined by ex-
amining whether substantial continuity exists with re-
spect to the employing industry , specific business oper-
ations, plant, jobs and working conditions , supervisors,
machinery , equipment, methods of production, product
or service, and work force . The substantial continuity
test remains the yardstick utilized by the Board for de-
ciding issues of successorship . Applying this principle to
the facts thus far developed in this case , it becomes read-
ily apparent, and I find, that at its 3939 W. Ogden
Avenue store , the Respondent operates the same business
in the same industry as did Certified Grocers . Butera is
located in the same building and also has a separate meat
and fish department. Butera has the same job classifica-
tions and working conditions. With the exception of
using a slightly lower percentage of boxed meat and the
processing of a small percentage of meat from rails
which it had installed , Butera operates its meat depart-
ment with the same machinery , equipment , and methods
of production used at Certified. Indeed, much of the
equipment was purchased from Certified when Respond-
ent purchased the store . Although the record shows that
Certified Grocers operated warehouse type stores at
other locations , it is clear that the store at 3939 W.
Ogden Avenue had for some time prior to its sale to
Butera been operating as a full-service retail supermar-
ket. This fact was acknowledged by Joseph Butera in his
testimony when he noted that he chose to open the
Ogden Avenue store first because it did not have to be
converted. Thus, the chief difference between Certified's
operation and that of Respondent at Ogden was the in-
stallation by Respondent of a full -service delicatessen,
none of whose employees worked in the meat and fish
department . Therefore, the evidence is convincing that
each of the Burns' criteria had been satisfied except for
consideration of the remaining issue of whether or not
there exists a substantial continuity in the work force. It
is to this issue that this Decision must now turn its atten-
tion.
Continuity of the work force exists where a majority
of the successor's work force is composed of the employ-
953
ees of the predecessor. Contract Carriers, 258 NLRB 353,
355 (1981 ). The controlling point in time for deciding the
majority question is when a bargaining demand has been
made by the representative of the predecessor 's employ-
ees and when a representative complement of the succes-
sor's work force is on the job . Aircraft Magnesium, 265
NLRB 1344, 1345 (1982). A representative complement
exists when the successor 's job classifications have been
substantially filled and the successor is conducting
normal or substantially normal operations . Fall River
Dyeing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987). Applying
these principles to the instant case, it becomes immedi-
ately obvious that the following facts are highly relevant.
Joseph Butera opened 3939 W. Ogden for business as
Butera Finer Foods on February 26.6 The meat depart-
ment opened 1 or 2 days later . By this time Joseph
Butera had hired each of the employees who had
worked in Certified 's Ogden meat department at the time
the store closed , except for Meat Market Manager Tom
Ademak. Indeed , Ademak had been offered a job by
Butera, but declined . At all times material herein , the six
former Certified meat department employees occupied
the same job classifications and performed the same type
of work for Butera as they had for the predecessor.
Thus, Arthur Bradley, John Russell , and Fred Feller
were and continued to be journeyman meatcutters. Mari-
lyn Bell remained the wrapper , Gus Rodriquez and his
brother Emanuel continued to operate the fish depart-
ment . In addition to the former Certified employees,
Steve Butera, Paul Palazzolo , and his brother Frank Pa-
lazzolo were hired and began working in Respondent's
meat department from the outset of operations. Steve
Butera was hired by Joseph Butera 2 weeks before the
store opened for the position of meat and fish department
manager . Paul Palazzolo was hired in January for the
position of back room boss and meat manager trainee.
Frank Palazzolo was hired on February 27 as a meatcut-
ter and back room boss trainee . Thus, it is clear, and un-
disputed, that Respondent 's meat department at Ogden
Avenue began normal operations with a complete staff of
employees almost from the day of opening . In addition,
between February 27 and April 16, the date on which
the Union demanded recognition , Joseph Butera hired
additional employees . Stanley Sokolowski was hired on
March 6 as a back room meat manager and meat manag-
er trainee . Respondent also employed Chris Hill, James
Presley, Michael Williams, Harold Wells , and Chris
Minter as utility clerks , sometimes called "meat depart-
ment trainees."7 On April 24, by letter, the Respondent
6 It is undisputed the Joseph Butera is a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act in that he possesses and exercises the authority and responsi-
bilities set forth in Sec 2(11) of the Act, and I so find
' In his initial testimony Joseph Butera omitted the names of Harold
Wells and Chris Minter from his recitation of the employees who he
claimed were working in the meat and fish department as of April 16 He
also omitted these employees ' names from a list he furnished to the Board
following the Union's filing of a representation petition However, both
Minter and Wells are listed in the testimony of meatcutter Arthur Brad-
ley as having worked in the Ogden meat department in April I therefore
find that they must be considered along with the other utility clerks
954 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
declined to recognize the Charging Party as the collec-
tive-bargaining agent of its meat and fish department em-
ployees.
It is uncontested that Respondent had filled the job
classifications in the meat department and was engaging
in substantially normal operations as of the date of the
Union's demand . Thus, the pivotal issue in this case is
what constitutes an appropriate collective-bargaining unit
and which employees should be included in that unit for
purposes of determining whether or not the Union had a
majority as of that date. The Respondent argues that the
only appropriate bargaining unit includes the meat and
fish department employees at all of the Respondent's
stores . In the alternative, it urges that the only appropri-
ate bargaining unit consists of a wall-to-wall unit of all
grocery and meat and fish department employees at all
of the Respondent 's stores . As a further alternative, it is
urged that the only appropriate unit consists of a wall-to-
wall unit of all grocery and meat and fish department
employees at the Ogden Avenue store . I disagree. It has
long been axiomatic that all that is required under the
National Labor Relations Act with respect to a bargain-
ing unit, in this regard , is that the unit be an appropriate
unit . It need not be the only appropriate unit or the most
appropriate unit . Moreover, it is settled that a single
store meat department unit is presumptively appropriate.
Great Scott of Florida, 256 NLRB 885 (1981 ); Big Y Su-
permarkets, 161 NLRB 292 (1971). The cases cited by
Respondent in support of its position are inapposite. Fur-
thermore , the evidence with respect to Certified's oper-
ation of the Ogden store shows that a unit composed of
its fish and meat department is the bargaining unit his-
torically recognized . Finally, the Respondent 's allusion
to the principle of an expanding unit has no merit. The
evidence shows that the Respondent opened its division
store a month after the Union's demand, and its Belmont
store 2 months thereafter. Thus, the Respondent's con-
tention is at odds with the Supreme Court's holding in
Fall River. I find that a collective-bargaining unit com-
posed of all meat and fish department employees at the
Respondent 's 3939 W. Ogden Avenue store, excluding
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, is an appropriate unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
It is now necessary to evaluate which employees
should be included and which should be excluded from
the appropriate unit . Since, as noted earlier, it is agreed
that Joseph Butera is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act, he is excluded . It is likewise agreed among the
parties that as of April 16, meatcutters Bradley, Russell,
and Feller, the wrapper, Marilyn Bell , and fish depart-
ment employees Emanuel and Gus Rodriquez were at
that time rank-and-file meat department employees and
should be included. I so find. The disputed categories are
alleged supervisors and the utility clerks.
The Utility Clerks
Five irregular part-time utility clerks , referred to by
Joseph Butera as "kids," worked at irregular part-time
employees 4 to 5 hours a day on varying days bagging
chickens in a rear hallway behind the meat department.
While bagging chickens and cleanup work occupied
most of their time, they also occasionally assisted the
wrapper by catching meat as it left the wrapping proc-
ess, placed trays of meat in the cooler, and placed price
labels on wrapped meat . They were paid $3 . 80 per hour,
as opposed to the meatcutters who were paid $13.20 per
hour. None of these employees were ever trained in
meatcutting , or ever performed any meatcutting work.
The evidence shows that Chris Hill fluctuated his work-
ing time between the meat and grocery departments,
while James Presley spent from February 18 to May 18
working in a vacant building rented by the Respondent
at 3518 Division . Since it has been conclusively proven
that the wages , hours and working conditions of the util-
ity clerks are distinctly different from those of other
meat department employees , I find that they have a sepa-
rate and distinct community of interests from other meat
department employees and I exclude them from the ap-
propriate collective -bargaining unit.
The General Counsel contends that Steve Butera, Paul
Palazzolo, Stanley Sokolowski , and Frank Palazzolo
were each supervisors of the Respondent at its Ogden
Avenue store as of April 16, and therefore should be ex-
cluded from the collective -bargaining unit . The Respond-
ent takes the opposite position . I shall now consider each
of these employees separately.
Steve Butera
About 2 weeks before the Ogden store opened , Joseph
Butera hired his cousin to be meat department manager
at Ogden Avenue. Joseph Butera conceded that, know-
ing of Steve's prior experience as meat supervisor over
18 stores of Butera Foods, he employed him for the pur-
pose of supervising all meat operations at all stores after
they opened . Steve Butera ran the meat department at
Ogden Avenue throughout February and March, but in
April he began spending much of his time at the Divi-
sion store which was preparing to open . Following the
opening of the Belmont store , he became overall meat
department supervisor . The parties stipulated that as of
the first week of May Steve Butera had the duties and
responsibilities referred to in Section 2(11) of the Act
which made him a supervisor as of that time. Steve
Butera did perform some work in the meat department at
Ogden. Much of his time was spent ordering meat from
suppliers , preparing lists of meat items to be cut , check-
ing the quantity and freshness of meat in the meat
counter, and taking special orders from customers which
he referred to the meatcutters for preparation . However,
Steve Butera did not spend much time performing actual
meatcutting work. He prepared lists of what needed to
be done in the way of meatcutting , and passed these in-
structions on for others to perform. He decided what
cuts and quantities were needed . He issued orders to the
fish employees concerning when the fish case should be
cleaned . He gave instructions to the employees concern-
ing when they should take their breaks, and the employ-
ees were expected to follow his directions . He orally rep-
rimanded employees for improper job performance, and
issued written reprimands to them for neglect of duty.
He recommended that Emanuel Rodriquez receive a
raise , and Joseph Butera accepted the recommendation
BUTERA FINER FOODS 955
without further investigation . Steve Butera does not
punch a timeclock , but instead writes his own time on
the timecard and approves it. He has authority and does
in fact make necessary alterations to employees' time-
cards when, for example, they fail to punch the clock. In
conclusion , employees who worked under Steve Butera
testified that they considered him to be their supervisor.
Paul Palazzolo
Joseph Butera hired Paul Palazzolo in January as back
room boss and a meat manager trainee . Joseph Butera
testified that Paul was hired with the intention that he
would become a meat manager at the Division Avenue
store when it opened in May . In May, Paul Palazzolo
became meat department manager at the Division store.
At Ogden, Paul received $ 14.30 per hour and an addi-
tional $20 per week manager 's premium . He did not per-
form much actual meatcutting work although he occa-
sionally cut meat on the saw, ground meat , made sau-
sage, checked in deliveries , and wrapped meat in the
evening hours when others were gone . Mainly, he
worked on the meat counter as part of his training for
the forthcoming meat manager 's position , performing
many of the same duties there that were assumed by
Steve Butera . Although he had no authority to hire, fire,
transfer employees , or set store policy, he did spend
most of his time giving directions to the meatcutters con-
cerning what meats he wanted cut and correcting their
work when they cut meat improperly . He was responsi-
ble for seeing that the employees completed their work
in a proper and timely manner, inspected deliveries, and
told employees when to take their breaks . He gave the
fish department employees directions concerning the
pricing of fish to insure that the fish was sold before it
spoiled . He reprimanded employees for being late and
enforced the Company 's dress code . On one occasion he
reprimanded an employee for wearing the wrong col-
ored shirt and told him he would send him home if the
incident were repeated . Paul Palazzolo likewise wrote
his own hours on the card and verified it with his own
signature. In April, when Steve Butera spent much time
preparing for the opening of the Division Avenue store,
Paul Palazzolo was frequently left in charge of the meat
department.
Frank Palazzolo
Frank Palazzolo was hired in February as a meatcutter
and trainee for the position of back room boss, which
position Joseph Butera intended him to assume at Ogden
as the other stores prepared to open . In April he became
back room boss . Although he did actual hands on work
in the meat department , grinding meat, making sausage,
cutting meat , wrapping , working the counter , relieving
the fish man , and accepting deliveries and loading the
cooler, he also told employees what work to do and how
it should be done . While he testified that he had no au-
thority to hire, fire, discipline , transfer, set store policy,
assign unscheduled overtime , or designate employee
breaks, the evidence shows that a month after the store
opened Steve Butera admonished meatcutter Arthur
Bradley that he would have to follow Frank Palazzolo's
orders or be terminated . Subsequently, on May 2, Arthur
Bradley was discharged for failing to follow orders from
Frank Palazzolo . In April, after he became back room
boss, employees were expected to follow his instructions
and accept assignments from him. Thereafter he would
tell meatcutters what cuts of meat were needed and how
much meat to cut each day. He also gave employees in-
structions , which they were supposed to follow, con-
cerning when to take their breaks . He frequently worked
different hours from the other employees , staying on to
finish work which needed to be done in the department
before leaving in the evening . Frank frequently worked
on Saturdays , assisted by a meatcutter and a utility clerk.
He served as acting supervisor for 20 hours in a 44- to
48-hour week, and during April and May, when Paul Pa-
lazzolo and Steve Butera were frequently away prepar-
ing other stores for opening, Frank Palazzolo performed
much of the supervision of the meat department. He has
authority to and does interview prospective meat depart-
ment employees for employment . Joseph Butera has
hired applicants based solely on Frank Palazzolo's rec-
ommendation , and without further investigation. Meat
and fish department employees look to him as their su-
pervisor. He also signs for his hours on his timecard, and
is paid the $20 per week manager's premium.
Stanley Sokolowski8
Stanley Sokolowski was hired by Joseph Butera on
March 6 for work in the Ogden Avenue store , pursuant
to an application requesting a job as a meat manager.
According to Joseph Butera, he hired Sokolowski with
the intention of employing him as a meat manager in the
future at one of his other stores. Sokolowski had also
worked at Butera Foods and knew how Joseph Butera
wanted meat cut. Thus , shortly after he was hired, Soko-
lowski became a meat manager trainee . Initially, he spent
a great deal of time cutting meat on the saw , grinding,
unloading deliveries , wrapping meat, and performing
other hands on meat department functions . As time pro-
gressed he began instructing employees concerning how
Joe Butera wanted meat cut, giving other instructions
and directions , and working on the meat counter, as did
Steve and Paul. By mid-April , employees understood
that they were to follow Stanley's orders, and considered
him their supervisor . He referred to them as his employ-
ees. His authority had, by that time , become the equal of
Frank Palazzolo 's. Beginning at the end of March and
continuing thereafter , Sokolowski assigned work to em-
ployees, and directed their work concerning what to cut
and in what order of priority to cut it . He corrected the
work of the experienced meatcutters when, in his opin-
ion, the meat was not cut in accordance with Joseph Bu-
tera's standards. In late April he held a meeting of the
meat department employees wherein he informed them
that Frank Palazzolo would henceforth be the back room
boss with authority to assign them their duties. It was
8 Stanley Sokolowski was not a candid witness His testimony was
fraught with inconsistencies , contradictions , and implausible explanations
In other instances his testimony was contradicted by clear documentary
evidence I do not credit his testimony except where it is supported by
the testimony of other witnesses
956 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sokolowski who first told Arthur Bradley that he must
follow instructions from Frank or else leave the store.
Sokolowski received $ 14.30 per hour plus the manager's
$20 per week premium . He signed for his own time in-
stead of punching a timeclock . In April, when Steve
Butera and Paul Palazzolo were away preparing to open
other stores , Sokolowski performed Steve Butera's job.
I find that the evidence , summarized above, concern-
ing Steve Butera, Paul Palazzolo , Frank Palazzolo, and
Stanley Sokolowski shows that they possess attributes of
supervisory status set forth in Section 2(11) of the Act.
Accordingly , I find that they are supervisors , and were
supervisors on April 16 when the Union made its
demand for bargaining . In my view , any concern that a
reader of the record might otherwise have with respect
to the otherwise obvious disproportionate number of su-
pervisors to employees in a single retail store meat de-
partment , is fully explained by the testimony of Joseph
Butera to the effect that he was using the Ogden Avenue
store meat department to form a cadre of supervision for
use at other stores . The fact that each of these four per-
sons possessed and exercised supervisory authority is un-
derscored by the testimony of Arthur Bradley concern-
ing the many conflicting instructions he received and
was supposed to try to follow . Moreover, separate and
apart from the supervisory issue, I further find that as of
April 16, Steve Butera and Paul Palazzolo , by virtue of
their responsibilities with respect to Joseph Butera's
other stores ; Stanley Sokolowski , because he was in
training to become a meat department manager else-
where ; and Frank Palazzolo, because of his benefits and
alignment with management , had a community of inter-
ests considerably different from those of the Ogden store
meat department employees . Consequently , I would ex-
clude them from the collective-bargaining unit in any
event . I therefore find that on April 16, the date of the
Union's demand for bargaining , the Ogden store meat
department bargaining unit was composed of meatcutters
Bradley, Russell, and Feller ; wrapper Marilyn Bell, and
fish department employees Gus and Emanuel Rodriquez,
each of whom had been previously employed by the
predecessor, Certified Grocers. Therefore, I find that a
substantial continuity in the work force between the em-
ployees of Certified and those in the meat department of
Respondent 's Ogden store exists, and that the Respond-
ent is the successor to Certified at Ogden , and thus is ob-
ligated to bargain collectively with the Union . Having
failed and refused to do so on April 24 and thereafter,
the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act.
The Announcement and Implementation of the
401(k) Pension Plan and the Allegations of
Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
On Tuesday morning, April 21, about 10:30 a.m.,
Arthur Bradley, Fred Feller, and Marilyn Bell were
walking toward the break room when Joseph Butera ap-
peared and stated that he wanted to talk with them.
They proceeded to the break room together , where,
eventually, about 10 to 12 Ogden store employees assem-
bled to listen to what Butera had to say . Among the
group were Paul Palazzolo and Gus Rodriquez. Butera
passed out a paper from which , he said , he was reading.
He announced that he was going to be installing a new
pension program in the form of a 401 (k)-type pension
plan. He said that he would deduct a sum of money from
the paychecks of each of the employees, before taxes,
which would go into the plan every week . Then, at the
end of the year he would make a contribution . He said
that the employees would have the plan as long as they
were with the Company, that they could take the money
out at any time, but that if they did they lost his contri-
bution . The meeting lasted about 20 to 30 minutes and
ended with Butera stating that he was working on the
details with his lawyers, and that they would have a fur-
ther meeting to answer the employees ' questions after
the details were complete . On Friday, April 24, Joseph
Butera came to the cutting room about 9 or 9:30 a.m.,
where Bradley, Feller, Bell, Emanuel Rodriquez, Frank
Palazzolo, and Stanley Sokolowski were working . Butera
was visibly upset . According to Arthur Bradley, Butera
said he'd received a letter from the Union saying they
had 80 percent of the people "back there" that wanted to
be represented by the Union . He stated that they were
not giving his program a chance to work , and that if the
Union came in they could not have his pension plan. He
stated that negotiations with the Union would take a
while and that it would take months for the Union to
come in. When that happened he said he might not be
paying them the same salary , and that it might be lower.
He said that the employees could not have two pension
plans, and that they could either have the union plan or
his plan. The meeting ended without any questions or
any discussion.
Emanuel Rodriquez testified that Joseph Butera read a
letter about the butchers wanting a union, and then said
that if they wanted the pension plan they couldn 't have a
union . According to Rodriquez , Butera stated that he
might lower their salary if they had a union , and asked
the employees to give him a chance to work things out
with the Union and with the employees . He concluded
his remarks by reminding them that he had "brought in
kids" to clean up and do the easy things for them.
Joseph Butera testified that he stated he had just re-
ceived a letter from the Labor Board which said the
Union claimed they had enough votes either for an elec-
tion or "that they could come right in." Butera said he
was disappointed that they did not give him a chance to
put his package together , and give him a little more time
to see if his way of doing things would have worked. He
reminded the employees that even though the Union
came in , they would still have to sit down and negotiate
a contract , and that "it is not that they are going to walk
in and get so and so and so. Everything has to be negoti-
ated . We don't know what rate you are going to make.
It is not going to be overnight . What I mentioned was
that if you belonged to one union-one pension plan,
you couldn ' t belong to the other ." According to Butera,
he got the "impression" that employees could only
belong to one pension plan from his insurance agent,
Jerome Mancuso . Butera denied ever stating that he
would take away the 401 (k) plan if the Union came in,
and insisted that he did say he would sit down and nego-
BUTERA FINER FOODS
tiate with the Union, which would probably take 3 or 4
months.
None of the other members of Respondent 's meat de-
partment testified concerning Joseph Butera 's remarks,
although , according to Bradley, Frank Palazzolo, Stan-
ley Sokolowski, and others were present. The three ver-
sions of Joseph Butera's April 21 speech are not dissimi-
lar in content . Butera's version is more complete and de-
tailed and coherent . Therefore, I am persuaded that his
account is the more accurate version . Nevertheless, it is
clear that the motivation behind Butera 's impromptu
speech was his anger over receiving the letter from the
NLRB Regional Office concerning the Union's election
petition . This event caused him to berate the meat and
fish department employees in a manner clearly designed
to discourage their organizational efforts. Under all the
circumstances , Butera's statements to the effect that col-
lective-bargaining negotiations would take a long time
and might well result in their receiving less pay, in my
view , exceed the boundaries of permissible rhetoric, and
as such constitute a threat of reduced wages and of the
futility of the organizational process. As such, I find that
his remarks constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act as alleged in the complaint.
Later in the day Stanley Sokolowski had a conversa-
tion with Steve Butera in the coffee room upstairs above
the store . Steve asked what was going on with the letter
which Joseph Butera had received. He said he had not
seen a union agent . Sokolowski replied that he would
like to know what "my employees think of it and what is
going on." Steve answered that he would like to know
also, and for Sokolowski to find out if he could. Shortly
thereafter Sokolowski approached Arthur Bradley in the
cutting room . He said he had talked to Steve Butera and
that Steve had asked him when the union man had come
into the store . Sokolowski said that he had not seen him,
whereupon Butera said he wanted him to find out, and
how the employees were going to vote, but that he was
not going to do it because it was none of his business.
Having considered all of the circumstances surrounding
this incident, including the fact that it followed close on
the heels of Joseph Butera's threat, I find that this con-
versation was coercive and constitutes unlawful interro-
gation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.9
On April 24, Joseph Butera also sent a binder check to
the insurance company for the 401 (k) pension plan. He
had been urged to do this by his insurance agent, Jerome
Mancuso, who feared that Butera might delay and there-
by have to pay less favorable interest rates . Butera and
Mancuso testified that they began talking about soliciting
quotations from various insurance companies for the
401(k) plan in the fall of 1986 . Butera announced the
plan to employees on April 21, but nothing was firm
until the binder check was sent on April 24, the day Re-
spondent refused to bargain with the Union. The plan
was not effective until May 1. On these facts the law is
clear . It has long been settled that employee pension
If Sokolowski were not a supervisor, Steve Butera 's remarks to him
would, in my view, constitute unlawful solicitation of an employee to as-
certain and report on employees' union sympathies, in violation of Sec
8(a)(l).
957
plans are mandatory subjects for bargaining , and when
an employer unilaterally announces and implements such
a plan without first bargaining with the Union which
represents its employees , it violates the Act. Under
Burns, supra , once an employer which acquires a busi-
ness becomes a successor employer under the Act, that
employer is no longer free to unilaterally set the terms
and conditions of employment of its employees without
notice to and bargaining with the Union. In the instant
case the Union demanded recognition on April 16, by
which time the Respondent had employed a substantial
and representative complement of Respondent 's Ogden
meat and fish department employees, and was, therefore,
a successor . On April 21 the Respondent announced the
creation of the 401(k) plan, and refused to recognize and
bargain with the Union, by letter, on April 24. The
binder check was sent to the insurance company on
April 24, and the plan was implemented on May 1. The
fact that the Respondent had decided to install a plan
and was actively considering various insurance company
proposals, with the insistence of Mancuso , as early as
late 1986, is immaterial . What is important is that the
plan was announced and implemented after the Union
made its demand for bargaining and at a time when it
represented a majority of Respondent's Ogden meat and
fish department employees. Thus, the Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act as alleged in the
complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Joe B . Foods, Inc. d/b/a Butera Finer Foods is, and
has been at all times material herein , an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. UFCW Local 546, affiliated with United Food &
Commercial Workers International Union , AFL-CIO,
CLC, the Union, is, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. All employees who process, pack, wrap, handle,
price and sell frozen and fresh meats and fish in the meat
and fish department of Respondent's store at 3939 W.
Ogden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois; excluding office cleri-
cal employees , guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act and all other employees , constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein , President Joe Butera,
Meat and Fish Department Manager Steve Butera, Meat
Manager Stanley Sokolowski , Back Room Manager
Frank Palazzolo , and Back Room Manager Paul Palaz-
zolo are each supervisors and agents of Respondent
acting on its behalf within the meaning of Section 2(11)
and (13) of the Act, respectively. Moreover, their bene-
fits and responsibilities apart from their supervisory
status are such as to align them with management to a
degree which renders their community of interests differ-
ent from those of rank-and-file meat and fish department
employees. Consequently, they are excluded from the ap-
propriate collective-bargaining unit.
958 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. Because they have an insufficient community of in-
terest with Respondent 's meat and fish department em-
ployees at its 3939 W. Ogden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois,
store, Respondent 's utility clerks are excluded from the
appropriate collective-bargaining unit.
6. By virtue of the operations and circumstances found
to exist herein , the Respondent has continued the em-
ploying entity at the store at 3939 W. Ogden Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois, and is the successor of Certified Gro-
cers d/b/a Super Plus Warehouse Foods at that location.
7. At all times material herein the Union has been the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the unit described above in paragraph 3, and,
by virtue of the Respondent's status as the successor em-
ployer to Certified, has at all times material herein con-
tinued to be, and is , the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in said unit at Respond-
ent's store at 3939 W. Ogden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.
8. By failing and refusing to recognize and bargain
with the Union as requested , as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the appro-
priate unit described in paragraph 3, including but not
limited to the announcement , and implementation of a
pension plan for those employees on or about April 21
and May 1, respectively , the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
9. By coercively interrogating employees and threaten-
ing them with loss of wages and other benefits if they
selected the Union as their bargaining agent, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
10. The unfair labor practices described above are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. The Act has not been violated by Respondent in
any respects other than those specifically found.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated the Act as
specified in the section of this Decision entitled "Conclu-
sions of Law," I shall order the Respondent to cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since the Re-
spondent has failed and refused to recognize and bargain
collectively in good faith with the Union as requested,
including but not limited to the unilateral creation, an-
nouncement , and installation of an employee pension
plan without notice to or bargaining with the Union, I
shall order Respondent , as successor, to recognize
UFCW Local 546, affiliated with United Food & Com-
mercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC,
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its
employees in the unit found appropriate in this Decision,
and, upon request , bargain with the Union with respect
to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment. If any agreement is
reached , Respondent shall embody such understanding in
a signed collective-bargaining agreement . I shall also
order the Respondent to post an appropriate notice con-
cerning all violations found to have occurred. Because
the record shows that certain of Respondent's 3939
Ogden Avenue employees have been transferred by Re-
spondent from store to store in the Chicago area since
the events which gave rise to this proceeding occurred, I
shall order the Respondent to post a notice at each of its
Chicago area stores.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record , I issue the following recommend-
edto
ORDER
The Respondent , Joe B . Foods, Inc. d/b/a Butera
Finer Foods, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with UFCW
Local 546 , affiliated with United Food & Commercial
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Re-
spondent 's employees in the appropriate unit with re-
spect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment.' 1
(b) Unilaterally changing the wages , hours, and work-
ing conditions of its bargaining unit employees , including
but not limited to unilaterally announcing , and instituting
an employee pension plan , without notice to or bargain-
ing with the Union.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union membership , activities, and sympathies.
(d) Threatening employees with loss of wages and
other benefits if they selected the Union as their bargain-
ing agent.
(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) Recognize and, upon request , bargain collectively
with UFCW Local 546, affiliated with United Food &
Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
CLC, as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit described in paragraph 1(a), footnote
11 of this Order, and embody any understanding reached
in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at each of its Chicago, Illinois stores copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix ." 12 Copies of this
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being signed by an authorized agent of
Respondent , shall be posted by it immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter
10 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.
ii The appropriate unit is-
All employees who process , pack, wrap, handle , price and sell
frozen and fresh meats and fish in the meat and fish department of
Respondent 's store at 3939 W Ogden Avenue , Chicago, Illinois, ex-
cluding office clerical employees , guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act and all other employees
IY 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."
BUTERA FINER FOODS
in conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that these notices
are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other materi-
al.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order , what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with
UFCW Local 546, affiliated with United Food & Com-
mercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC,
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
Respondent 's employees in the appropriate unit with re-
spect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment . The appro-
priate unit is:
All employees who process , pack , wrap , handle,
price and sell frozen and fresh meats and fish in the
959
meat and fish department of Respondent 's store at
3939 W. Ogden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois ; exclud-
ing office clerical employees , guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act and all other employees.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the wages, hours,
and working conditions of its bargaining unit employees,
including but not limited to unilaterally announcing, and
instituting an employee pension plan , without notice to
or bargaining with the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of wages
and other benefits if they selected the Union as their bar-
gaining agent , nor will we coercively interrogate em-
ployees concerning their union membership , activities,
and sympathies.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL recognize and, upon request , bargain with
UFCW the above- named Union , as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and , embody any understanding reached
in a signed agreement.
JOE B . FOODS, INC. D/B/A BUTERA FINER
FOODS