Mi Pueblo Foods

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 2014

360 N.L.R.B. 988 (N.L.R.B. 2014)

988 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
360 NLRB No. 121
Mi Pueblo Foods and The United Food and Commer-
cial Workers Union, Local 5. Case 32–CA–
064836
May 28, 2014
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA
AND JOHNSON
On June 21, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Mary
Miller Cracraft issued the attached decision. The Charg-
ing Party filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The
Respondent filed an opposition brief and the Charging
Party filed a brief responding to the Respondent’s oppo-
sition.
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,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Mi Pueblo Foods, Northern
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall take the action set forth in the Order.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively question you about your un-
ion support or activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with potential consequenc-
es for supporting a union.

1 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s findings that the Respond-
ent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening an employee that he
would likely not be promoted if the Union came in and by interrogating
two employees on separate occasions about their union sympathies.
2 We shall substitute a new notice in accordance with our decision
in Durham School Services, 360 NLRB 694 (2014).
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
MI PUEBLO FOODS
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/32–CA–064836 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
Angela Hollowell-Fuentes, Esq., for the Acting General Coun-
sel.
Patrick W. Jordan, Esq. (Jordan Law Group), for the Respond-
ent.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (Weinberger, Roger & Rosenfeld), for
the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARY MILLER CRACRAFT, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard in Oakland, California, on February 27, 2012.
The charge was filed by United Food and Commercial Workers
Union, Local 5 (Charging Party or Union) on September 19,
2011. On November 30, 2011, the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB or Board) issued a complaint alleging that Mi
Pueblo Foods (Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act)1 by interrogating two
employees on separate occasions regarding their union sympa-
thies and voting intentions, as well as threatening one of those
employees that he would likely not be promoted if the Union
came in. Respondent filed a timely answer denying that it en-
gaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses,2 and after considering the briefs sub-
mitted, I make the following

1 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(a)(1).
2 Credibility resolutions have been made based on a review of the
entire record and all exhibits in this proceeding. Witness demeanor and
inherit probability of the testimony have been utilized to assess credi-
bility. Testimony contrary to my findings has been discredited on some
occasions because it was in conflict with credited testimony or docu-
ments or because it was inherently incredible and unworthy of belief.
1=1 L. r- .1 1=1
Lt I 1 i..q Frio Lt I
MI PUEBLO FOODS 989
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent, a California corporation, operates a chain of re-
tail grocery stores throughout Northern California. During the
12 months preceding issuance of the complaint and at all mate-
rial times, it has received gross revenues in excess of $500,000
and during the same period has purchased and received goods
valued in excess of $5000 directly from sources outside the
State of California. Respondent admits, and I find, that Re-
spondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I further find, and Respondent
admits, that United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5 (the
Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. FACTS
A. Background
Respondent operates a chain of 21 retail grocery stores
throughout Northern California with a total staff of approxi-
mately 1500 employees. The two stores involved here are store
#20, the Gilroy store, and store #11, the Hayward store.3
In approximately July 2009, the Union was present for an an-
ti-Mi Pueblo demonstration at the opening of Respondent’s
East Palo Alto Store. After learning of the demonstration, Re-
spondent decided to implement a series of training programs
which would educate management in union avoidance strate-
gies. The training sessions were conducted first in approxi-
mately February 2010, and then continued later on into that
summer.
In approximately February 2011, another demonstration oc-
curred at Respondent’s Oakland store where 15 to 20 individu-
als affiliated with a religious group came into the store chanting
and disrupting business. This triggered the Respondent to es-
tablish a procedure and policy regarding how supervisors
should manage union or other disruptions in stores. The new
procedure incorporated a term called “Code 6.” Code 6 was a
nondescript announcement that could be made over the store’s
PA system to notify the management team that demonstrators
had entered the store. On hearing Code 6, the management
team would then place themselves in certain locations through-
out the store so as to be in position to observe and document
any misbehavior by the demonstrators. Management was in-
structed that employees should do nothing in Code 6 situations
unless they acted voluntarily. During these trainings, Respond-
ent also provided management with the acronym “TIPS,” which

3 During roughly the same time as the events in this proceeding, an-
other unfair labor practice charge was brought against Respondent
regarding its distribution center by the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Local 853, a/w Change to Win. Pursuant to the resultant
unfair labor practice hearing, the administrative law judge found that
Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Sec. 8(a)(1) and (5) when it failed to bargain with the Union regarding
route and schedule changes, subcontracting work, reducing the fre-
quency of deliveries, and changing how products were delivered from
one of its vendors, thus resulting in the permanent layoff of six em-
ployees. See decision of Administrative Law Judge Eleanor J. Laws,
JD(SF)–06–12 (Feb. 9, 2012).
was to help remind managers not to threaten, interrogate, prom-
ise, or surveil in regard to employee union or other protected
activity.
Beginning in approximately April 2011, management was
authorized and encouraged to tell employees about Code 6 so
they would be aware of the term and the associated procedure.
B. Conversation Between Carlos Zepeda and Rogelio Marquez
Rogelio Marquez worked for Respondent as a dairy clerk at
the Gilroy store, store #20, until he was laid off in July 2011
due to low sales. While employed by Respondent, his immedi-
ate supervisor was Carlos Zepeda, the store’s grocery manager.
Beginning in January 2011, Marquez was introduced to the
Union by a friend, signed a union card, and began reporting
details about the Gilroy store to the Union. Marquez also went
to union meetings, and by April and May 2011 he was discuss-
ing the Union with coworkers. Through all of this, however,
Marquez made sure to keep his union affiliations secret from
Respondent.
In April 2011, Carlos Zepeda attended the training meetings
regarding TIPS and Code 6. According to Zepeda’s testimony,
he was instructed during those meetings to tell his employees
that they were to do nothing in the event of a Code 6 an-
nouncement. Soon after attending the meetings, Zepeda was
informed by Store Director Jose Luis Fernandez that Respond-
ent had authorized the disclosure of Code 6 procedures to em-
ployees by management. That same day, during working time,
Zepeda took Marquez aside to speak with him about Code 6.
Later in the day, Zepeda spoke to the remaining employees
about Code 6. These employees were not present in the store at
the same time as Marquez.
According to Marquez, the conversation with Zepeda took
place at around 1:30 p.m. in front of the deli and lasted approx-
imately 30 to 50 minutes. Zepeda began the conversation by
explaining to Marquez that the Union was getting interested in
Respondent. Then Zepeda asked for Marquez’s watch, at
which point he told Marquez he would sell it to him for $100.
Marquez protested that it was his watch, but Zepeda responded
that Marquez had no proof or documentation. Zepeda then pro-
ceeded to explain to Marquez that the Union would take his
money in a similar fashion by promising him benefits he al-
ready had.
Zepeda next asked Marquez if he would attend a union vote,
and if so, who he would vote for: “Would you go to a voting to
vote in favor or against the Union?”4 He told Marquez that it
would be good for him to vote if he were against the Union
because his vote would favor Respondent and the process
would appear democratic. Zepeda then told Marquez that if the
Union came in they would manage promotions according to
seniority, and given Marquez’ recent hire date, it would not be

4 Respondent also notes that in his affidavit, Marquez described
Zepeda’s words as, “Zepeda asked me whether I would go and vote if
there was an election. I told him I would be neutral. He kept asking me
if I would vote. He told me that it was important to go to the vote be-
cause if I was against the Union, my vote could make the difference.”
Marquez agreed that his affidavit stated as indicated. Marquez did not
alter his testimony, however, that Zepeda stated, “Would you go to a
voting to vote in favor or against the Union?”
990 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
easy for him to get any promotions. Zepeda and Marquez had
discussed the possibility of a promotion to the position of assis-
tant manager earlier in February 2011. Zepeda confirmed in his
testimony that such a position was available, that he had inter-
viewed Marquez for the position, and as of the hearing date, the
position had not yet been filled. Zepeda stated that in February,
he told Marquez that he had his resume and the door would still
be open for Marquez. Finally, Zepeda concluded the conversa-
tion by telling Marquez that if he saw anybody from the Union
come into the store he should announce “Code 6” over the PA
system to notify the supervisors.
Marquez testified that later that same day he contacted Union
Representative Gerardo Dominguez and told him about the
conversation he had with Zepeda regarding the Union.
Dominguez confirmed the call in his testimony, explaining that
it occurred in early April, and that during the call Marquez told
him that Zepeda used Marquez’ watch to explain how the Un-
ion would take his money. Dominguez also testified that
Marquez then told him that Zepeda said the Union would inhib-
it Marquez from getting a promotion because of seniority
standards.
According to Zepeda, the conversation occurred around 12
p.m. in front of the taqueria and deli, and lasted only about 15
minutes. Zepeda further testified that this was not a usual place
to have such meetings. During the conversation, Zepeda told
Marquez the details of Code 6, and said that if he heard “Code
6” over the PA system, Marquez should do nothing. Marquez
then asked Zepeda questions about the Union, including how
much he would have to pay the Union if they came into the
store. Zepeda told Marquez that he did not know but that when
he was previously involved with unions, he paid around $575 to
join and then $60 to $80 per paycheck for dues. Then Marquez
asked Zepeda what he advised him to do in regard to joining
the Union. Zepeda expressed that the choice was up to
Marquez. Zepeda denied ever speaking to Marquez about his
watch, union voting, promotions, or using the PA system for
“Code 6” situations. Further, Zepeda denied knowledge of
union elections or seniority.
Zepeda also testified that later that same day, at approxi-
mately 3 p.m., he had a similar meeting with several other em-
ployees, one of whom was Gonzalo Olmos, in the warehouse
area. Zepeda stated that the meeting lasted approximately 10 to
15 minutes, and that all he and the employees discussed were
the procedures associated with a Code 6 announcement. Olmos
gave testimony confirming the meeting, and stated that Zepeda
only talked to them about Code 6, that Zepeda told him em-
ployees did not have to do anything if “Code 6” was called, and
that Zepeda did not ask him how he felt about the Union at all.
C. Conversation Between Gustavo Camacho
and Florentino Piña
Florentino Piña worked for Respondent as a butcher in the
meat department at the Hayward store, store #11, until he was
fired in June 2011 due to his slow performance. Piña supported
the Union, and in April and May 2011, Piña discussed the Un-
ion with 8 or 10 of his coworkers. In these conversations, Piña
was careful not to let supervisors overhear because the employ-
ees feared they would be discharged if they were heard talking
about the Union.
At all relevant times in 2011, Gustavo Camacho was the
store director at the Hayward store. Between March and Au-
gust of 2011, Camacho attended training meetings held by Re-
spondent which instructed managers on TIPS and Code 6.
Camacho testified that in regard to Code 6, he was taught that
only management should respond to such a call and that em-
ployees should not get involved.
According to Piña, in approximately April or May 2011, he
had a conversation with Camacho in the parking lot of the
Hayward store that lasted about 5 to 10 minutes. Camacho
initiated the conversation while loading groceries into his car
with Janet [last name unknown]. Piña testified that Janet was
the cashier manager or the cashiers’ supervisor, or perhaps head
cashier or lead cashier. During the conversation, Camacho
asked Piña what he thought about the Union and why. Piña
responded that he thought the Union was “advisable” because it
would ensure that the employees got fair pay, holidays, and
benefits. Camacho then explained to both Piña and Janet that
the Union would take $3 to $4 an hour from their paychecks
and that they would be working for the Union. Piña responded
by saying that was not true, and that at most the Union would
take only one or two percent in dues. Camacho told Piña that it
was his decision but that he advised against it. At some point
during the conversation, Janet recounted that she had a sister-
in-law who worked at Costco and had a union, and that she was
doing well for herself in the Union. At the end of the conversa-
tion, Camacho told Piña he could do whatever he wanted re-
garding the Union, but to get back to work in the mean time.
Piña told Union Representative Gerardo Dominguez about
the conversation after he was fired. Dominguez testified that
Piña told him about a conversation he had with Camacho in the
parking lot where Camacho questioned Piña about his ideals
and support for the Union.
Camacho confirmed having a conversation with Piña in the
parking lot of the Hayward Store in approximately April or
May 2011. According to Camacho however, he was just about
to leave the store in his car when Piña approached him and
began complaining about something that Camacho could not
definitely recall. Piña also told Camacho about his other job at
Safeway where the employees had recently “bought [the union]
out” because they were not getting raises. Camacho told Piña,
“Okay. That’s good. Good for you,” and that was the end of
the conversation. Camacho denied that he was loading grocer-
ies during the conversation although he agreed he sometimes
brought home groceries at the end of his shift. Camacho, who
identified Janet as the front-end manager, denied that Janet was
present for the conversation, and that anything more about the
Union was ever discussed. Both Piña and Camacho recall only
ever having this one conversation in the parking lot of the store.
III. CREDIBILITY RESOLUTION
As between Marquez and Zepeda’s testimony, I credit
Marquez based upon his demeanor, inherent probability and
reasonable inferences on the record as a whole. Not only did
Marquez answer questions clearly, but he also gave an accurate
recollection in regard to context and detail. Additionally,
MI PUEBLO FOODS 991
Dominguez confirmed unique aspects of Marquez’ story, which
without being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, at
least shows consistency in Marquez’ testimony. Thus I find
that Zepeda asked Marquez, “Would you go to a voting to vote
in favor or against the Union?” Furthermore, while I find it
unlikely that the conversation between Marquez and Zepeda
lasted 30–50 minutes, I do not find that this compromises the
substance of Marquez’ testimony. It is natural for an employee
in a one-on-one situation with a high-ranking manager to feel
nervous and thus have misconceived notions of time. Zepeda
presented himself as an articulate, knowledgeable witness with
a stellar history of rise through the ranks of Respondent’s hier-
archy. However, he was sometimes abrupt in his testimony and
gave little detail. Further, I note that though Zepeda was
trained in union avoidance and knew the acronym TIPS, this is
not dispositive of the possibility that he interrogated or threat-
ened Marquez. Finally, I reject Respondent’s invitation to find
corroborative the testimony of an employee who attended an
afternoon meeting with Zepeda to the effect that there was no
interrogation or threat in that meeting.
As between Piña and Camacho, I credit Piña based upon his
demeanor, the contextual content of the testimony, and inherent
probability. Piña’s testimony showed great attention to detail
and a forthright statement of the facts. Additionally, Piña an-
swered questions clearly and respectfully, and without argu-
mentation. Camacho on the other hand was rigid, and his recall
was occasionally lucid but more typically vague. Particularly
notable was the fact that Camacho could not recall what Piña
was saying to him at the beginning of the conversation, but
could then remember with detail how he responded to Piña and
everything that was communicated afterwards. Furthermore,
Camacho’s version of the conversation seems improbable given
its lack of purpose and its abrupt closure. Finally, I find it un-
likely in the circumstances that an employee would testify
about the presence of a third person during the parking lot con-
versation especially a person with a managerial title unless that
third person was actually a part of the conversation.
Counsel for the General Counsel argues that an adverse in-
ference should be drawn based on the fact that Janet failed to
appear as a witness. Similarly, Respondent argues that Piña
should be discredited because he did not tell union representa-
tive Dominguez that Janet was a part of the conversation and
did not attempt to find out Janet’s last name. Piña identified
Janet as the “cashier manager,” the “cashiers’ supervisor,”
“head cashier,” and “lead cashier.” Camacho, who as store
director might have better knowledge of Janet’s title, described
her as the “front-end manager” and stated that she sometimes
assisted in closing the store. Based upon the title “front-end
manager” and the duty of “sometimes” closing the store, it is
not possible to affirmatively find that Janet was a supervisor or
agent within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) or (13) of the Act.
Thus, because the record does not indicate whether Janet was a
member of management or not, I cannot reasonably assume that
Janet would be favorably disposed to testify in favor of Re-
spondent. Therefore, Respondent’s failure to call her as a wit-
ness to corroborate its version of the events does not create an
adverse inference. See generally, Roosevelt Memorial Medical
Center, 348 NLRB 1016, 1022 (2006) (failure to call witness
who is agent of party may lead to adverse inference that if wit-
ness were called, testimony would not be favorable to party).
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Interrogation of Marquez
In Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176, 1177–1178 (1984),
enfd. sub nom. Hotel Employees Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d
1006 (9th Cir. 1985), the Board ruled that the appropriate
means to decide whether the questioning of an employee
amounted to unlawful interrogation was to consider the totality
of the circumstances of each situation. As guiding principles
for the analysis, the Board suggested—though did not man-
date—the application of the factors used in Bourne v. NLRB,
332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964). Rossmore House at 1178 fn.
20. These factors include (1) the background of the employer,
(2) the nature of the information sought, (3) the identity of the
questioner, (4) the place and method of interrogation, and (5)
the truthfulness of the reply. Bourne at 48. While these factors
provide insightful assistance, they “are not to be mechanically
applied in each case.” Instead, the Board has found that the
task is ultimately “to determine whether under all the circum-
stances the questioning at issue would reasonably tend to co-
erce the employee at whom it is directed so that he or she
would feel restrained from exercising rights protected by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.” Medcare Associates, Inc., 330 NLRB 935,
940 (2000). The Rossmore House test is an objective one and
does not rely on the subjective aspect of whether the employee
was in fact intimidated. Multi-Ad Services, 331 NLRB 1226,
1227–1228 (2000), enfd. 255 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2001).
On considering the totality of the circumstances, including
the Bourne factors, I conclude that Respondent, through Gro-
cery Manager Carlos Zepeda, unlawfully interrogated Marquez
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The evidence shows
that at the time of the conversation, Respondent had become the
focus of much union activity, and as a result, was attempting to
avoid the Union. Further, Zepeda was Marquez’ immediate
supervisor, and confirmed in his testimony that he had the pow-
er to promote Marquez. This relationship paired with the unu-
sual meeting place in front of the deli, the private nature of the
conversation, and the fact that the conversation began with
Zepeda taking Marquez’ watch, created an inherently coercive
atmosphere. Finally, Zepeda questioned Marquez directly
about his voting intentions with the Union, and then expressed
an opinion regarding how Marquez should vote. Further, be-
cause I find below that Zepeda also threatened Marquez during
this same conversation, I find this questioning rises to the level
of unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
B. Interrogation of Piña
On considering the totality of the circumstances, including
the Bourne factors, I conclude that Respondent, through Store
Director Gustavo Camacho, unlawfully interrogated Piña in
violation of Section 8(a)(1). The evidence shows that Camacho
held one of the highest management positions in the Hayward
store and that Piña was significantly lower in rank. Additional-
ly, Camacho initiated the conversation in the store parking lot,
which appears to be an uncommon meeting place. Camacho
immediately began the conversation by asking Piña how he felt
992 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about the Union and why. On explaining his sympathies,
Camacho then listed negative aspects of union affiliation and
concluded by telling Piña that he advised against the Union. At
the end of the conversation, Camacho told Piña to get back to
work, thus reestablishing his authority. All of these factors
indicate a coercive situation resulting in an unlawful interroga-
tion in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
C. Threat Regarding Promotion
The Supreme Court in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S.
575, 618 (1969), established that an employer may express its
general views about unionism, or specific views about a partic-
ular union, so long as the communications do not contain a
threat of reprisal or force. The Court explained further that an
employer could even make a prediction as to the effects unioni-
zation will have on their company, so long as that prediction is
based on objective facts and is in regard to things beyond the
present control of the employer.
In the present case, Zepeda made the statement that Marquez
would likely not be promoted if the Union came in because of
the Union’s seniority standards. I find that this was an implicit
threat, and therefore a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The evidence does not show that Zepeda’s statement was
based on any reasonably calculated objective facts, and because
the statement implicitly carried a threat of reprisal against
Marquez if he voted for the Union, the statement would reason-
ably be understood as a threat. Indeed, Zepeda directly admit-
ted later in his testimony that he had no personal knowledge of
seniority standards within the Union, losing Respondent any
protections thought feasible through Gissel Packing Co., see,
e.g., Presidential Riverboat Casinos, 329 NLRB 77 (1999)
(statement that wages might possibly be decreased if the union
were elected would reasonably be understood as a threat that
employer might retaliate by reducing wages); Ed Chandler
Ford, 254 NLRB 851, 852, 858 (1981), enfd. in pertinent part
718 F.2d 892 (9th Cir. 1983) (statement that collective bargain-
ing would probably result in loss of bonuses, not based on ob-
jective fact, constituted threat of loss of bonuses if union won
election).
Additionally, I note Metro One Loss Prevention Services
Group, 356 NLRB 89, 89 (2010), in which the employer said to
an employee “[You] need to be grateful for the number of years
that [you] have been working with Metro and for [your] pay
rate . . . it could get much worse in the event the Union comes
in.” The Board found that the statement coercively conveyed to
the employee that “he would be jeopardizing his job security
and current wage rate by supporting the Union,” and was thus
an unlawful threat. Similarly, in the case at hand, Zepeda coer-
cively conveyed to Marquez that his current chances of promo-
tion would be jeopardized if he supported the Union. I find
such a statement to be an unlawful threat under Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interrogating two employees on separate occasions
about their union sympathies, Respondent, Mi Pueblo Foods,
Inc., has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. By threatening an employee that he would likely not be
promoted if the Union came in, the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended5
ORDER
The Respondent, Mi Pueblo Foods, in various locations in
Northern California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating any employee about union sup-
port or union activities.
(b) Threatening employees with possible adverse conse-
quences of joining a union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Northern California retail grocery stores copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 32, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical post-
ing of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electroni-
cally, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customar-
ily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed-
ings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since April 2011.

5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
MI PUEBLO FOODS 993
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsi-
ble official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 21, 2012
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this
Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties
WE WILL NOT coercively question you about your union sup-
port or activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with potential consequences for
supporting a union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
MI PUEBLO FOODS