Save-It Discount Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1982

263 N.L.R.B. 689 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

SAVE-IT DISCOUNT FOODS, INC.
Save-It Discount Foods, Inc. and United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, Local 1540, AFL-
CIO-CLC and National Production Workers
Union, Local 707
National Production Workers Union, Local 707 and
United Food and Commercial Workers Union,
Local 1540, AFL-CIO-CLC and Save-It Dis-
count Foods, Inc. Cases 13-CA-20825 and 13-
CB-9390
August 24, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND
HUNTER
On January 27, 1982, Administrative Law Judge
Robert M. Schwarzbart issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent
Employer filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
the General Counsel filed a cross-exception and an
answering brief, and the Respondent Employer
filed an answering brief.'
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, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein. 3
The General Counsel filed a cross-exception limited to a request that
the Board substitute a narrow cease-and-desist order for the broad order
against the Respondent Union recommended by the Administrative Law
Judge. The Respondent Employer filed a document labeled "answering
brief' which, in fact, is not a response to the General Counsel's cross-
exception, but, instead, is a reply to the General Counsel's answering
brief to the Respondent Employer's exceptions, and has nothing what-
ever to do with the cross-exception. This is an abuse of the Board's pro-
cesses, which limit parties to one brief in support of, and one brief in op-
position to, each set of exceptions and cross-exceptions.
a The Respondent Employer has excepted to certain credibility find-
ings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established
policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with re-
spect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant
evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Producrt Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir.
1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re-
versing his findings.
I In his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge employed
broad injunctive language in ordering Respondent Union to cease and
desist from engaging in "any other" unlawful conduct. This may have
been inadvertent, as the corresponding language in the portion of the
Order addressed to Respondent Employer, and the corresponding lan-
guage in both notices appended to the Administrative Law Judge's Deci-
sion is the narrow, "any like or related manner." As the General Counsel
does not seek the broad language and, in fact, has excepted to the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's use of such language, we shall narrow it to con-
form to the notices.
Member Jenkins would compute interest on the dues and other moneys
unlawfully exacted from employees in accordance with his dissent in
Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 NLRB 146 (1980).
263 NLRB No. 97
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, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that Respondent
Save-It Discount Foods, Inc., Mundelein, Illinois,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Re-
spondent National Production Workers Union,
Local 707, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order, as so modified:
Substitute the following for paragraph B, 1(c):
"(c) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the Act."
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT M. SCHWARZBART, Administrative Law
Judge: These consolidated cases were heard on October
26, 27, and 28, 1981,1 in Chicago, Illinois, pursuant to
charges 2 filed by United Food and Commercial Workers
Union, Local 1540, AFL-CIO-CLC, herein Local 1540,
and a consolidated complaint issued April 20.
The complaint alleges that Save-It Discount Foods,
Inc., herein called the Respondent Employer, violated
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, herein called the Act, and that
National Production Workers Union, Local 707, herein
called the Respondent Union, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the Act. More specifically, it is alleged that
the Respondent Employer recognized the Respondent
Union at, and applied its union-security collective-bar-
gaining agreement with that Union covering its four
other Illinois retail stores to, employees at its newly
opened Mundelein, Illinois, store. Employees and/or job
applicants were required to sign membership applications
dues-checkoff authorizations and enrollment forms for
union insurance. Moneys deducted thereafter as initiation
fees and dues were paid to the Respondent Union. This,
assertedly, was done at a time when Local 707 did not
represent an uncoerced majority of those employees. The
Respondent Union, in these circumstances, is alleged to
have correspondingly violated the Act by accepting such
recognition, the application of this collective-bargaining
agreement to the Mundelein employees, and the deduct-
ed moneys paid over as initiation fees and dues. Addi-
tionally, the Respondent Employer is alleged to have in-
dependently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling
employees at its Mundelein store that they would not be
hired by the Company unless they gave up membership
in a labor organization other than the Respondent Union,
and by coercively interrogating a Mundelein employee
concerning her union activities. In their answers, the Re-
' All dates hereinafter are within 1981 unless otherwise specified.
a The charges in Cases 13-CA-20825 and 13-CB-9390 were filed on
February 12.
689
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondents deny the commission of unfair labor practices.
The Respondents contend that they had acted appropri-
ately in extending the terms of their collective-bargaining
agreement to employees at the Mundelein store on the
ground that that store is an accretion to the existing four-
store bargaining unit and that, as such, they were bound
by the contract's "recognition" provision which they in-
terpret as making the agreement applicable to hourly
paid employees employed by the Company at all its
retail stores.
Upon the entire record of this case and my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent Employer, an Illinois corporation, is
engaged in the retail sale of limited item discount foods
in and about the Chicago, Illinois, area, including the
suburbs of Elmhurst, Aurora, Mundelein, and Forest
Park, all in Illinois. During the 12 months preceding issu-
ance of complaint in this matter, a representative period,
the Respondent Employer, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, sold goods and products valued in
excess of $1 million. During that same period, the Re-
spondent Employer purchased goods and products
valued in excess of $50,000, which were shipped from
outside the State of Illinois directly to points within the
State of Illinois.
From the foregoing conceded facts, I find that the Re-
spondent Employer is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The answers admit and I find that Local 1540, the
Charging Party, and the Respondent Union, Local 707,
both are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Application and Enforcement of the Collective-
Bargaining Agreement at the Mundelein Store
1. The facts
The Respondent Employer, in business for about 3
years, operates five retail stores in Chicago, Illinois, and
that city's suburbs of Elmhurst, Aurora, Forest Park, and
Mundelein, where a limited variety of food items are
sold at discount. The general manager charged with
overall supervision of these stores is Robert Johnson. In
July, Don Rosenova replaced Richard Lorenzetti, who,
until then, had been district manager, 3 assisting Johnson
in the operation of these stores.
The Respondent had entered into a collective-bargain-
ing agreement, effective from January 1, 1979, until mid-
night, December 31, 1981, applicable by the terms of ar-
ticle 3, the recognition provision, "to all hourly-paid em-
s The five stores comprise the Respondent Employer's only district.
ployees employed by the Company in its retail stores,
but exclud(ing) managers, assistant managers, office cleri-
cal employees and truck drivers." The contract provided
for union security, mandating membership in the Re-
spondent Union after an appropriate grace period; for re-
mittance of dues to the Union by the Company at specif-
ic intervals; a grievance-arbitration procedure; and for
monthly employer contributions to the National Produc-
tion Workers Union, Local 707, Insurance Fund on
behalf of each employee in the bargaining unit, "for the
purpose of providing life insurance and other additional
insurance benefits for such employees."
At the time the contract was executed, on January 11,
1979, effective retroactively, to January 1, the Respond-
ent Employer had but two stores where the agreement
could be applied, in Aurora and Forest Park. These units
had opened in 1978 and 1979, respectively. When the
Elmhurst and Chicago stores were opened consecutively
in June and July 1980, the contract was extended to the
hourly rated employees at those locations as well.
The Respondent Employer's general manager, Robert
Johnson, testified that he further extended the collective-
bargaining agreement to cover the hourly paid employ-
ees at the Mundelein store which had begun operations
on January 5, because of the contractual provision which
made it germane to all the Company's hourly employees.
Johnson explained that there was no contractual lan-
guage limiting the applicability of the agreement to spe-
cific stores or locations, nor was it restricted by any ju-
risdictional limitation on the part of the Respondent
Union. Johnson testified that he had decided indepen-
dently to extend the contract to Mundelein in December
1980, when the Company had begun to establish that
store and before any employees had been hired to work
there.
At the hearing, the parties entered the following stipu-
lation concerning the Mundelein store and the applica-
tion of the existing collective-bargaining agreement to
persons employed there:
Save-It Discount Foods, Inc., through its super-
visors and agents, began accepting applications for
employment and interviewing applicants at its new
store in Mundelein, Illinois, in early December,
1980.
The first hourly employees began working in that
store in late December 1980.
During December 1980 and January 1981, Save-
It Discount Foods, Inc., through its supervisors and
agents, distributed applications for membership in
Local 707, National Production Workers Union,
and dues checkoff authorization cards4 to certain of
its newly-hired hourly employees in Mundelein, Illi-
nois, and received back the completed and executed
cards from a majority of its hourly employees in
Mundelein, Illinois.5
4The parties stipulated that what actually was distributed were three-
part forms each of which included an application for membership in the
Respondent Union, a dues-checkoff authorization, and an enrollment
form for group insurance.
I Johnson explained that in December 1980, during the first hiring
period for the Mundelein store, job seekers at their initial interviews,
Continued
690
SAVE-IT DISCOUNT FOODS, INC.
On or about January 24, 1981, Save-It Discount
Foods began deducting initiation fees and dues from
the pay of certain of its employees in Mundelein, Il-
linois.
Beginning in February 1981, and once each
month thereafter, Save-It Discount Foods, Inc., has
paid to Local 707, National Production Workers
Union, the money which it had withheld for initi-
ation fees and dues from the pay of its employees in
Mundeleln, Illinois.
In accordance with the terms of its agreement
with Local 707, National Production Workers
Union, as described in paragraph VIII(a) of the
Complaint and the affirmative defense pleaded in
paragraph XVI of the Employer's Answer, the
Company recognized Local 707 as the collective-
bargaining representative of its hourly employees in
Mundeleln, Illinois, and applied the terms of that
contract to them.6
It further was stipulated that, since the end of Febru-
ary, a sign has been posted at the Company's Mundelein
store stating, in effect, that the Mundelein facility was a
union store organized by the Respondent Union. Similar
signs had been posted earlier at each of the Respondent
Employer's other stores.
As noted, the General Counsel contends that the col-
lective-bargaining agreement was unlawfully extended to
the Mundelein store at a time when a representative
complement of that store's employees had not yet been
hired and when Local 707 did not have the support of an
uncoerced majority of that store's employees. The Gen-
eral Counsel does not contest the Respondent's earlier
extensions of that contract to the Company's other
stores. The Respondents, contrary to the General Coun-
sel and Local 1540, assert that the Mitndelein store is an
accretion to the existing multistore bargaining unit, that
they were bound under the terms of their contract to
apply that agreement to the Mundelein employees, and
that in so doing they had acted lawfully, consistent with
the principles of accretion.
The Respondent Employer's corporate headquarters
are in North Lake, Illinois, at a separate facility from the
stores. Dominic DiMateo, the Company's president and
chief executive officer, has his office there, as do John-
son and Conrad McAlpine, vice president and treasurer,7
completed only the work application forms If called back for a second
interview and hired they then would fill out W-4 forms. Successful appli-
cants might also then be given the three-part membership application
forms for Local 707, particularly If the business agent had left a supply or
was present at the time Some of these prehire interviews were conduct-
ed by Johnson and some by the then district manager, Lorenzetti.
6 As the stipulation indicates, par. VIII(a) of the complaint alleges that
the Respondents executed and enforced the described contract for the
unit set forth above, while par. XVI of the Company's answer admits the
execution of that agreement, asserts that the contract is valid and that the
Respondent Employer "was obligated by said collective-bargaining
agreement to recognize the hourly-paid employees at its Mundelein store
as being represented by the Respondent Union pursuant to said collec-
tive-bargaining agreement."
7 McAlpine is in charge of the Respondent Employer's accounting
facilities, pays the Company's bills, and writes its checks. It is Johnson
and those subordinate to him who are charged with the operation of the
stores.
both of whom report directly to DiMateo. Also based at
North Lake is the district manager, immediately subordi-
nate to Johnson, and who most directly oversees the
stores. As noted, while the Mundelein store was being
initiated and until July, this position was filled by Rich-
ard Lorenzetti, who, at the time of the hearing, held an-
other position with the Company's parent concern,
Fisher Foods. Since Lorenzetti's departure the district
manager has been Don Rosenova.
The managers of the five stores report to Johnson
through the district manager, who, in November and
December 1980 and January 1981, the period principally
in issue, spent approximately 75 percent of his time away
from headquarters visiting the various stores, including
Mundelein. In addition to the store manager, each store
has an assistant manager, and all stores but Forest Park
also have a manager-trainee, sometimes referred to inter-
nally as "the third man." In accordance with the stipula-
tion of the parties, I find that the store managers, assist-
ant managers, and manager-trainees are salaried supervi-
sors and agents of the Respondent Employer within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
The hourly store employees, mostly in high school or
junior college, all work part time, averaging around 15
hours per week. No hourly employees are on a 40-hour
weekly schedule. Such hours contrast with those of the
store managers and assistant managers, who, at Munde-
lein, work around 50 and 45 hours, respectively, ar-
ranged so that one of them and/or the management-
trainee always is present.
At the time of the hearing, the Mundelein store em-
ployed about 16 hourly employees, while, since January,
the Aurora and Elmhurst stores each have employed ap-
proximately 25 hourly employees. Since January, the
Forest Park and Chicago stores had respective comple-
ments of about 30.
The five stores' hours of operation reflect the follow-
ing variations: 8
Store Monday-
Thursday
Aurora &
Forest
Park
Friday Saturday Sunday
9 a.m.-7 9 a.m.-9 9 a.m.-6 9 a.m. 5
p.m. pm. p.m. p.m.
Chicago 9 a.m.-8
p.m.
Mundelein 9 a.m.-8
p.m.
Elmhurst 9 a.m.-7
p.m.
9 a.m.-9
p.m.
9 a.m.-9
p.m.
9 a.m.-9
p.m.
8 a.m.-7
p.m.
8 a.m.-6
p.m.
8 a.m.-6
p.m.
9 a.m.-5
p.m.
Q a.m.-5
p.m.
Closed
Generally, employees work on rotating shifts as sched-
uled by their store managers. While the store managers
might check with the district manager in preparing the
weekly work schedules, this function essentially is each
store manager's responsibility. Employees who have spe-
cial reasons recognized by their store managers, for
wishing to work fixed hours, may be assigned to their
shifts on a permanent, nonrotating basis.
a Store hours are determined by Johnson after receiving recommenda-
tions from the district and store managers.
691
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The assistant managers are in charge of the stocking
area and the clerks assigned there. They substitute for
the store managers in their absence.
The five stores are similar in appearance, and, except
for certain beverages, sell the same items.9 As noted, the
stores are not full-time supermarkets, but, instead, carry
limited assortments of foods, including produce, frozen
foods, dairy, canned goods, cereals, and other packaged
products. There are no meat departments. There usually
is one name brand and one generic or house brand of
each item. All goods are sold at discount. To maintain
low prices, services are kept to a minimum. The Compa-
ny does not cash checks, handle money orders, or accept
return bottles. Customers take their selections to the
cashiers, who, after checking out the goods, move them
to other empty shopping carts. The customers bag their
own groceries.
Johnson determines the merchandise to be carried at
the stores, who the suppliers will be for all items, and ne-
gotiates with the vendors to establish the prices. The se-
lected merchandise is set forth in order guides furnished
weekly to each store. These are catalogues used by the
store managers in ordering.
In placing orders, the code numbers given in the order
guides for the desired items are noted and punched into
electronic Telxon units in each store, together with the
quantities requested. This information is automatically
transmitted to receiving terminals at the warehouses of
the various suppliers. 0 Merchandise so ordered is select-
ed and shipped from those locations to the relevant
stores where it is put out for sale.
Store managers are authorized to order inventory
based on the volume of business done by their stores,
and are pretrained to make such value judgments. The
district manager routinely checks the volume of orders
and whether the proper amounts of merchandise are in
stock at the various stores. This examination includes
verification of merchandise ordered but not received,
merchandise not on hand, and merchandise not ordered.
The district manager, in the case of irregularity, might
also inquire into the procedure used in placing the
orders. The district manager also tries to learn if there
has been an unusually large turnover on any given prod-
uct. Store managers communicate by phone with John-
son's office to cut back on existing orders or to obtain
additional quantities of items in greater demand.
The district manager checks cash balances in the
stores' safes, cash overage, and shortage reports, and is
responsible for checking the cleanliness and orderliness
of each store. He acts to ensure that products are rotated
with the oldest moved out first, that merchandise is
properly displayed" and that the Company's pricing
I Johnson explained that individual beverage vendors are franchised to
operate within specified areas, usually delimited to certain counties, and
that, therefore, it is not possible to sell the same beverages in all stores.
Other than this, all stores are similarly operated, use the same equipment
including identical checkout machines, shopping carts, display signs, and
baskets, and follow a common pricing policy set by Johnson.
l0 The Respondent Employer owns the Telxon transmitter and some
of the receiving terminals, while certain other of the terminals are owned
by the vendors.
I Store managers who have display problems consult with the district
manager.
policies are followed. As noted, the district manager also
interviews applicants recommended by the store manag-
ers for positions as cashiers and stock clerks. Applicants
for jobs as utility or maintenance employees are ap-
proved for hire by the district manager on the store man-
agers' recommendation without separate interview.
Merchandise received at the stores are checked, count-
ed, and signed for there by a clerk or management repre-
sentative who makes out a receiver, a document showing
the invoice numbers and the purchase prices involved.
The receivers and the invoices are sent on the day of re-
ceipt to Johnson's office at North Lake from where bills
are paid only with Johnson's approval. All clerical func-
tions other than the stores' verification of receipt of mer-
chandise, as described above, are performed at the North
Lake headquarters office. Accordingly, all purchasing,
accounting, bookkeeping and payroll functions are car-
ried out there. Timecards from the five stores are
fowarded to North Lake and paychecks prepared there
are delivered to the stores, either by Johnson or the dis-
trict manager, for distribution by the manager.12 The
same bank is used in common for all stores.
The movement of inventory is coordinated between
stores by use of a transfer booklet, so that when a given
store needs an additional item available in surplus at an-
other store, the district manager can arrange the inter-
store merchandise transfer.
Advertising generally is done jointly for all stores.
Johnson sets up the advertisements and furnishes copies
to the stores. These appear in the form of handbills dis-
tributed at the stores, to customers door-to-door, or
posted at the stores. Johnson has placed ads for all stores
in Chicago metropolitan newspapers and ads for individ-
ual stores in the relevant local newspapers. The latter ad-
vertisements, however, also reflect sales and pricing poli-
cies that are identical with those in effect at the other lo-
cations. Certain advertisements are cooperative in that
the procedures of the promoted products share advertis-
ing costs with the Company, and allowances paid by na-
tional brand suppliers, temporary reductions in pricing to
help move specified items, are applied uniformly at all
the Respondent Employer's stores.
While interstore transfers of employees are quite infre-
quent, they do occur. The record shows that of the 37
hourly employees who had started their employment
with the Respondent at the Mundelein store since its in-
ception,13 there were 3 transfers from Mundelein to
other locations.' 4 In addition to the 37 employees re-
ferred to above, 4 others were brought into the Munde-
lein store from other facilities to assist there during the
" Employees at all stores fill the same job classifications of cashiers,
stockers, and maintenance; do the same work; and, within these classifica-
tions, are paid the same rates as provided in the collective-bargaining
agreement.
is Actually, of this number, three apparently had transferred to Mun-
delein from other stores.
4 Although the personnel notice forms used by the Company in
making such transfers indicated that two of these transferees from Mun-
delein had lef that store to train as "third men" or management-trainees,
both men subsequently remained hourly employees. In addition to their
use in connection with transfers, personnel notices also are used with re-
spect to increases, vacation and holiday pay, and termination for all
stores.
692
SAVE-IT DISCOUNT FOODS, INC.
opening. One such employee, involved in training check-
ers or cashiers, performed this function exclusively at the
Mundelein store for about three weeks before moving to
another store to do the same work. Two of the others
continued to work at Mundelein for about 6 weeks each,
returned to college, and are no longer employed. The
fourth, after spending approximately 6 weeks at Munde-
lein, returned to the Chicago store. In addition to trans-
fers of hourly employees, the original and still incumbent
manager of the Mundelein store had gone there from the
Elmhurst store, while the present manager of the Elm-
hurst store previously had been manager of the Chicago
store. Subject to Johnson's approval, there are no restric-
tions on transfers between facilities.
In matters of employee discipline, store managers, or
the assistant managers in the managers' absence, com-
plete a "constructive advice" form authorized by the
Company, a copy of which goes in the offending em-
ployee's personnel file. If there is more than one such
form, the district manager will speak with the worker.
Should problems thereafter persist, suspension or other
discipline might follow. The district manager must ap-
prove any discharge recommendation by the store man-
ager.
Johnson has overall responsibility for the Respondent
Employer's labor relations and, as the grievance-arbitra-
tion provision of the collective-bargaining agreement has
been applied to all stores, including Mundelein, he ulti-
mately may become involved in the resolution of any
matters arising from the constructive advice forms that
the union representative has not been able to settle with
the relevant store manager or with the district manager.
Johnson, in adjusting grievances, has overruled the dis-
trict manager.
The North Lake headquarters is approximately dis-
tanced from the various stores as follows: Elmhurst-10
miles; Forest Park-7 miles; Aurora-25 miles; Chica-
go-22 miles; and Mundelein-32 miles.'5 Mundelein is
approximately 23 miles from the Chicago store, the near-
est facility, which, in turn, is about 20 miles distant from
Forest Park. The Aurora store is around 20 and 25 miles
away from the Elmhurst and Forest Park locations, re-
spectively.
2. Discussion and conclusions
The General Counsel argues that the Mundelein store
is an appropriate unit standing alone and should not be
accreted to the Respondent Employer's four other stores
in the Chicago metropolitan area, even though a unit
consisting of all five stores might also be appropriate in
the context of a representation case. The Respondents
contend that the stores are interdependent and are func-
tionally and administratively integrated with strong cen-
tral control, and that, therefore, the only appropriate unit
must include all five stores, and that the extension of the
existing collective-bargaining agreement to cover the
is Before January, when the Mundelein store commenced operation,
the Company had had another store in Waukegan, Illinois, approximately
15 miles northeast of Mundelein and 30-35 miles from North Lake. How-
ever, the Waukegan facility was closed by the time the Mundelein store
opened, although rent continued to be paid on the facility until March or
April.
Mundelein store employees was proper in recognition of
a lawful accretion.
Administrative Law Judge Shapiro in his Board-ap-
proved decision in Westwood Import Company. Inc. 16 dis-
cussed certain principles applicable to accretion:
"An accretion is, by definition, merely the addi-
tion of new employees to an already existing
group." N.LR.B. v. Food Employers Council, Inc.,
and Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 399 F.2d 501,
502 (9th Cir. 1968). Employees so added to an exist-
ing bargaining unit are regarded as a part of that
unit. See Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. N.LR.B.,
440 F.2d 7 (2d Cir. 1971). In deciding whether a
new group of employees is an accretion to an exist-
ing bargaining unit, the Board not only considers
such factors as functional integration, level of man-
agement control, similarity of working conditions,
bargaining history, employee interchange, job skills,
and physical separateness but also gives special
weight to the interests of the unrepresented employ-
ees in exercising their own right to self-organiza-
tion. See Food Employers Council, Inc., supra at 501,
504. Hence, even though an overall bargaining unit
may be appropriate if the issse is raised in the con-
text of a petition for a representation election, the
Board will not, "under the guise of accretion,
compel a group of employees, who may constitute a
separate appropriate unit, to be included in an over-
all unit without allowing those employees the op-
portunity of expressing their preference in a secret-
ballot election or by some other evidence that they
wish to authorize the union to represent them."
Melbet Jewelry Co., Inc., and LD.S.-Orchard Park
Inc., 180 NLRB 107, 110 (1969). And, "when the
relevant considerations are not free from doubt,"
the Board and courts are in agreement that "it
would seem more satisfactory to resolve such close
questions through the election process rather than
seeking an addition of the new employees by a find-
ing of accretion" because "as a general rule, the ac-
cretion doctrine should be applied restrictively since
it deprives the new employees of the opportunity to
express their desires regarding membership in the
existing unit." Westinghouse Electric Corp. v.
N.LR.B., 440 F.2d 7, 11, and cases cited therein.17
Although the Respondents place particular emphasis
on the Company's centralized handling of administrative
and labor relations matters, of which there is much evi-
dence, the Board in Renzetti's Market, Inc.,18 held that:
[T]he Employer's centralized administration is not,
in our view, the primary factor which we must con-
sider in determining whether the employees work-
16 251 NLRB 1213, 1220 (1980), quoted with approval in Auto Process-
ing Company and Auto Warehousing Company, 258 NLRB 854 (1981).
'" Also see Party Cookies Inc, 237 NLRB 612, 616 (1978); Smith's
Management Corporation d/b/a Frazier's Market, 197 NLRB 1156, 1157
(1972); Meijer. Inc. d/b/a Meijer's Thrifty Acres, 222 NLRB 18, 24-25
(1976), enfd. 564 F.2d 737 (6th Cir. 1977); The Wackenhut Corporation,
226 NLRB 1085, 1089 (1976).
is 238 NLRB 174, 175 (1978).
693
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing at Store No. I enjoy a community of interest
separate and distinct from the employees at Store
No. 2. Rather, what is most relevant is whether or
not the employees at the sought store perform their
day-to-day work under the immediate supervision
of one who is involved in rating their performance
and in affecting their job status and who is personal-
ly involved with the daily matters which make up
their grievances and routine problems. It is in this
framework that we examine community of interest,
for the day-to-day problems and concerns among
the employees at one location may not necessarily
be shared by employees who are separately super-
vised at another location.9
' See, e.g., Haag Drug Company, Inc., 169 NLRB at 878; Star
Market Co., d/b/a Dan's Star Market Cao, 172 NLRB at 1395;
Purity Supreme, Inc., 197 NLRB at 917.
The record here shows that a substantial degree of su-
pervisory control has been vested in the individual store
managers. They schedule employees for work on various
shifts, deciding who will work set hours and those
whose shifts will rotate; they approve vacations, assign
overtime, and grant time off. As is true with the other
stores, after the initial hiring phase in connection with
the store's opening, job seekers apply at the Mundelein
store and are initially interviewed by the store manager.
Although applicants for positions as cashiers and stock
clerks are also interviewed by district manager on the
store manager's recommendation before being hired,
store managers are authorized to engage maintenance or
utility clerks without further interview by the district
manager, who approves their hire solely on the store
manager's advice. There are about three such mainte-
nance clerks at Mundelein.
If store employees, including those in Mundelein, fail
to please, the store managers are expected to complete
"constructive advice" forms which go into employees'
personnel files and which, with other such recorded
forms, may lead to disciplinary interview by the district
manager and ultimately to more severe measures. Store
managers also participate in resolving employee com-
plaints in the early stages of the grievance procedure, or
whether handled independently of that process. It is only
after they have been unable to resolve a problem that the
district manager and Johnson, if later required, become
involved.
Store hours vary and are approved in accordance with
the various store managers' recommendations. Within the
framework of suppliers, products and prices established
by the central office, store managers do the purchasing
for their respective stores, determining the items and
quantities required, and, within limits, whether additional
brand name or generic items are needed. From the
above, it is clear that the immediate supervision and day-
to-day concerns at the Mundelein store are separate and
autonomous from those at the other stores. As found in
Renzetti's supra, this automony is not lost merely be-
cause the day-to-day operation of each store is overseen
by the district manager, as central corporate officer, so
as to exclude the store manager from exercising total
independence. The Board noted in that case that "it is
the separate supervision at each of the stores, not the
independence of the local store manager, which under-
scores our analysis."' 9
Similarly, in Purity Food Stores, Inc. (Say-More Food
Stores),20 the Board held that "to regard the Respond-
ent's administrative structure as defeating the appropri-
ateness of a single-store unit would artificially disadvan-
tage the organizational interests of these and other chain-
store employees, simply because their employer operates
a chain rather than a single-store enterprise."
Other factors in Purity Foods Inc., supra, applicable
here, which led the Board to conclude that the disputed
store functioned as a distinct economic unit within that
Company's overall operations, rather than as part of a
multistore chainwide bargaining unit, included geograph-
ical separateness,' 1 variance of store hours, the use of
local advertising campaigns in addition to those done on
a chainwide basis, and the performance by employees at
each store of parallel, as distinguished from integrated,
functions.22 Here, too, a finding of substantial in-store
autonomy could be predicated upon the store managers'
responsibilities for scheduling work, hiring, ordering,
purchasing, and discipline. In the present case, it also is
noted that there was but little interchange between em-
ployees at the Mundelein store and those at other loca-
tions and that most of those assigned to Mundelein from
other facilities had been specially brought in to help with
the opening of that store.
From the above, notwithstanding the considerable evi-
dence of centralized control of administrative financial
and labor relations matters, and the limited interchange
of employees, as business needs required, I find that the
presumptive appropriateness of a single-store unit 23 has
I" Kirlin's Inc of Central Illinois, 227 NLRB 1220 (1977), and Super X
Drugs of Illinois. Inc, 233 NLRB 1114 (1977), two representation cases
cited by the Company, both les recent than Renzetti's Market supra, are
distinguishable. In these cases, the store managers had less authority in
certain basic personnel functions resulting in diminished in-store auton-
omy. Accordingly, in Kirlin's, unlike the instant matter, store managers
could not establish employee work schedules, a function performed for
all stores by the central office. In Super X Drugs, the store managers
could not even reprimand employees without the prior concurrences of
the district manager, while here, using the constructive advice forms,
store managers independently prepare written reprimands and also par-
ticipate in the adjustment of grievances.
'0 160 NLRB 651, 660 (1966), enforcement denied 376 F.2d 497 (Ist
Cir. 1967). The Respondents, in their briefs, placed particular reliance on
the Court of Appeals decision in Purity Food Store Inc.. supra, where it
was ruled, contrary to the Board, that in circumstances quite similar to
the instant case, but reflecting somewhat more centralized control, the
disputed facility was an accretion to the multi-store bargaining unit. The
Respondent Company has cited other court cases where the determina-
tiona also were contrary to the Board. With genuine respect to the courts
of appeals, in the event of precedential conflict, 1, of course, amn bound
by the findings of the Board.
" Here, a in Purity Foods Inc., the store in issue is located approxi-
mately 30 miles from the Employer's central office. If in Purity Foods, a
distance of about 10 miles from the Employer's nearest facility was
deemed by the Board sufficiently far to warrant finding that that store
served a different trade area from the other stores in the chain, such a
conclusion would be even more applicable here, as the Mundelein store is
23 miles from the nearest sister store.
2" 160 NLRB at 656.
s Haag Drug Company, Incorporated, 169 NLRB 877 (1968), Sap-On
Drugs Inc, 138 NLRB 1032 (1962).
694
SAVE-IT DISCOUNT FOODS, INC.
not been rebutted here and that the Respondent Employ-
er's Mundelein store may constitute a single-store appro-
priate unit standing alone. The evidence does not war-
rant a finding that the Mundelein store is an accretion to
the four-store unit of Company employees who are rep-
resented by the Respondent Union.24
Even, arguendo, if it were found in agreement with the
Respondents that the contractual recognition provision
validly could be construed as a "after acquired" or addi-
tional stores clause under the Act, so as to give the col-
lective-bargaining agreement applicability to subsequent-
ly opened stores, under Houston Division of the Kroger
Co.,26 the Board interprets such clauses to be contractual
waivers of an employer's right to petition for a Board
election upon request for recognition. However, Kroger
and cases in its line establish that such classes require
recognition only upon proof of majority status by a
union. In the present case, it is undisputed that General
Manager Johnson had recognized the Respondent Union
as bargaining representative and had decided to apply
the existing collective-bargaining agreement to employ-
ees at the Mundelein store before a representative com-
plement was employed there. It also is clear that un-
coerced majority status was never obtained among the
employees at that facility by the Respondent Union as
applications for membership in Local 707 dues-checkoff
authorizations and enrollment forms for Local 707-spon-
sored insurance were distributed to job applicants by
company supervisors and agents in December 1980 and
January 1981 as part of the initial hiring process at Mun-
delein. Moreover, Johnson testified in effect that the con-
tract was extended to the Mundelein store in December
1980, before a representation complement was employed
there. As the evidence shows that the Respondent Union
does not represent an uncoerced majority of employees
at the Mundelein store, under Kroger, the contractual
clause whereby that union is recognized for "all the
Company's hourly employees" could not in itself justify
extension of the collective-bargaining agreement to Mun-
delein.
Accordingly, I find, commencing in December 1980,
that by applying and enforcing the collective-bargaining
agreement, including those of its provisions concerning
union security, dues checkoff, 2 6 and insurance to its
Mundelein employees when those employees had been
afforded no opportunity to express their preferences in a
secret election and had not otherwise freely indicated a
desire to be represented by the Respondent Union, the
Respondent Employer has violated Section 8(aX1), (2),
and (3) of the act, and the Respondent Union, by accept-
ing all of the foregoing, and by participating in the post-
ing of a sign at the Mundelein store indicating that it rep-
"4 That employees at the Mundelein store receive the same pay rates
and other benefits as employees at the other stores by virtue of extension
of the collective-bargaining agreement to cover them does not, under a
theory of bargaining history or propriety, weigh against finding a sepa-
rate single-store unit to be appropriate here. TRT Telecommunications
Corporation, 230 NLRB 139, 141-142 (1977).
ss 219 NLRB 388 (1975). Also see Jaseph Magnin Company, Inc., 257
NLRB 656 (1981).
'a Included in this finding is that moneys for initiation fees and dues
actually were deducted by the Company pursuant to improperly obtained
checkoff authorization and were paid over to the Respondent Union.
resented persons employed there has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. In these circumstances, the
Respondent Employer unlawfully assisted Local 707 in
further violation of Section 8(aX2) and (1) of the Act by
posting, or permitting the Respondent Union to post, a
sign at the Mundelein store that the Respondent Union
represented the Company's employees at that facility. It
is clear that the effect of that sign would be to perpetu-
ate the unlawful recognition afforded to the Respondent
Union by discouraging employees and/or applicants for
employment at that store from joining or supporting an-
other labor organization. It further tended to discourage
organizational efforts among those employees by other
unions in the belief that Mundelein employees already
were validly represented.
B. Acts of Interference, Coercion, and Restraint-
Facts and Concluding Findings
Joan Mueller27 testified without contradiction that in
February, while in the office of Jerry Albino, Mundelein
store manager, obtaining her daily cash drawer, Albino
announced that he wanted to ask Mueller a question, but
that she should not let the matter go further than that
room. He then asked if Mueller had been approached by
any other union. When Mueller replied that she had not
and asked, why, had anyone else had been so ap-
proached, Albino told her that a few people had been.
I find that the above unrebutted interrogation of
Mueller concerning her union activities was in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Mary Citterman2 8 testified that on December 17, 1980,
after taking a test at the Mundelein store in connection
with her application for employment there, she asked the
then district manager, Richard Lorenzetti, in the pres-
ence of several other employees, if she could keep her
outside job at Eagle and still work at Save-It. Lorenzetti
replied that she could not continue to work at Eagle be-
cause she could not be in two unions at the same time.29
He advised Citterman to go to Eagle and tell them that
she had a better job. Citterman testified that she could
specifically recall the date of this incident as it was on
the following day that she quit her job at Eagle.
Lorenzetti remembered that, in December, while he
was conducting one of her two prehire interviews, Cit-
terman had told him that she was employed by Eagle.
He, in turn, informed her that it was company policy not
to allow an employee to work for a competitor. She
could work either for Eagle or for the Respondent Em-
ployer. If she wanted to work for Save-It, she would
have to resign her job at Eagle. Lorenzetti denied having
told Citterman that she could not belong to two unions
at one time or that he had told Citterman to inform
Eagle that she had a better job.
27 At the time of the hearing, Mueller was employed as a cashier in
the Mundelein store, a position she had held since the opening of that
store.
8, Citterman, also a cashier at the Mundelein store since its opening,
had been working at the Eagle grocery in Libertyville, Illinois, as a util-
ity clerk when she was hired by the Respondent Employer to work at
Mundelein.
as While employed at Eagle, Citterman had been a member of the
United Food and Commercial Worker Union.
695
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Citterman's account of this incident is credited. She
appeared to be a forthright witness with a clearer, more
detailed recollection of what had occurred than Loren-
zetti. Also, that Citterman was on the Company's payroll
when, at economic risk to herself, she testified against
her Employer's interest, is a factor to be considered in
assessing credibility.3 0 It further is noted that, although
Eagle was a competitor to Save-It, her maintenance job
there did not present a clear conflict in employment. Cit-
terman's positions at either company were hardly sensi-
tive.
Accordingly, it is concluded that by Lorenzetti's state-
ment to Citterman in the presence of other employees
that her ability to obtain employment with the Company,
in effect, was contingent upon union membership, specifi-
cally, upon her giving up membership in a labor organi-
zation other than the Respondent Union, the Respondent
Employer violated Section 8(aX)() of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondents set forth
in section III, above, occurring in connection with the
operations of the Respondent Company described in sec-
tion I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the sev-
eral States and tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Employer is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Union, National Production Work-
ers Union, Local 707, and the Charging Party, United
Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1540,
AFL-CIO-CLC, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By extending and applying its existing collective-
bargaining agreement with the Respondent Union to em-
ployees at its Mundelein, Illinois, store when that union
did not represent an uncoerced majority of those em-
ployees, the Respondent Employer engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
4. By the above conduct, and by further unlawfully as-
sisting and supporting the Respondent Union in soliciting
or instructing employees and/or applicants for employ-
ment at Mundelein to sign membership applications,
dues-checkoff authorizations, and insurance enrollment
forms for the Respondent Union; in deducting moneys
from wages of its Mundelein employees and remitting
same to the Respondent Union as initiation fees and dues;
and in permitting the posting of signs at its Mundelein
premises indicating that the Respondent Union represent-
ed employees at its Mundelein store, the Respondent
So Technical Careers Institute Inc., 259 NLRB 283 (1981); World Gen-
erator Company, Inc., 242 NLRB 1295, 1299, fn. 11 (1979); Gorgia Rug
Mill, 131 NLRB 1304, 1305, fn. 2 (1961), enfd. as modified 308 F.2d 89
(5th Cir. 1962).
Employer engaged in unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(aX2) of the Act.
5. By the conduct in paragraphs 3 and 4, above; by co-
ercively interrogating an employee at the Mundelein
store concerning her union activities and by informing
employees and/or applicants for employment at the
Mundelein store that employment there was contingent
upon their union status and/or cessation of membership
in labor organizations other than the Respondent Union,
the Respondent Employer has committed unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. By obtaining and accepting recognition as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the Respondent Em-
ployer's employees at the Mundelein store and by ac-
cepting the extension and the application of that contract
to those employees at a time when it did not represent an
uncoerced majority of the affected employees, the Re-
spondent Union engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
7. By the conduct described in paragraph 6, above, by
accepting moneys deducted by the Respondent Employ-
er from employees' wages at the Mundelein store and re-
mitted for initiation fees and dues, and by participating in
the posting of signs at the Mundelein store indicating
that it represents persons employed there, the Respond-
ent Union is restraining and coercing employees of the
Respondent Employer in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(XA) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that
they be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent Employer unlaw-
fully recognized and gave support to the Respondent
Union at its Mundelein, Illinois, store and unlawfully im-
posed a contract with that union containing union-secu-
rity, dues-checkoff, and insurance provisions, I shall rec-
ommend that the Respondent Employer withdraw and
withhold all recognition from Respondent National Pro-
duction Workers Union, Local 707, as the collective-bar-
gaining representative of its employees at its Mundelein
store and cease giving effect at that location to its con-
tract, without, however, requiring that the Respondent
Employer vary any wage or other substantive features
established under the same contract.
Inasmuch as I have found violations of the Act in the
unlawful extension of the union-security contract to the
employees at the Mundelein store, I shall recommend
that the Respondent Employer and the Respondent
Union be ordered, jointly and severally, to reimburse the
employees for dues and fees and any other moneys un-
lawfully exacted from them, with interest thereon to be
696
SAVE-IT DISCOUNT FOODS, INC.
computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Cor-
poration.3 '
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER3 2
A. Respondent Save-It Discount Foods, Inc., Munde-
lein, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Contributing support and assistance to Respondent,
National Production Workers Union, Local 707, or to
any other labor organization of its employees.
(b) Recognizing the Respondent Union, Local 707, as
the bargaining representative of any of its employees at
its Mundelein, Illinois, store for the purpose of dealing
with the Company concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment, unless and until said labor organi-
zation shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority rep-
resentative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election
among the said employees at the Mundelein store.
(c) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agree-
ment of January 1979 between the Respondents, or to
any extension, renewal, or modification thereof (insofar
as it applies to employees at the Mundelein store), pro-
vided, however, that nothing herein shall require the Re-
spondent-Company to vary or abandon any wages,
hours, or other substantive features of its relations with
its employees at Mundelein which the Respondent Em-
ployer has established in the performance of a contract,
or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights
they may have thereunder.
(d) Soliciting or instructing employees and/or appli-
cants for employment at the Mundelein store to sign
membership applications, dues-checkoff authorizations,
and insurance enrollment forms for the Respondent
Union.
(e) Deducting moneys from the wages of its Munde-
lein employees and remitting same to the Respondent
Union as initiation fees and dues.
(f) Permitting or sponsoring the posting of signs at its
Mundelein store indicating that the Respondent Union
represents persons employed there.
(g) Coercively interrogating employees at its Munde-
lein store concerning their union activities.
(h) Informing employees and/or applicants for em-
ployment at its Mundelein store that employment there is
contingent upon their union status and/or their discontin-
uation of membership in labor organizations other than
the Respondent Union.
ai 231 NLRB 651. See, generally, Isis Plumbing A Heating Co.. 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
as In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 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 findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
(i) In any like or related manner interfering with the
rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from the
Respondent Union, Local 707, as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of its employees at Mundelein for the
purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment unless and until said
labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive
majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted election
among its employees at the Mundelein store.
(b) Jointly and severally with the said Respondent
Union, Local 707, reimburse its employees at Mundelein
for any initiation fees, dues, or other moneys paid or
checked off pursuant to the aforesaid agreement or any
extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof,
or to any agreement superseding it, plus interest thereon
computed in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, and reports and all other records re-
quired to ascertain the amount of any reimbursements
due under the terms of this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its Mundelein, Illinois, store copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A."33 Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being duly signed by Respondent Em-
ployer's representatives, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent Employer immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent Employer to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Post at the same places as set forth in paragraph
2(d), above, and as soon as they are forwarded by the
Regional Director, copies of the Respondent Union.
Local 707, notice herein marked "Appendix B."
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent, National Production Workers Union,
Local 707, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining agency of any of
the Respondent Employer's Mundelein, Illinois, employ-
ees for the purpose of dealing with the Company con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment
unless and until said Respondent Union shall have dem-
onstrated its exclusive majority representative status pur-
1s 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 a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
697
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suant to a Board-conducted election among the employ-
ees at the Mundelein store.
(b) Giving effect to the January 1979 collective-bar-
gaining contract between the Respondent Employer and
the Respondent Union, Local 707, insofar as it affects
employees at the Mundelein store or to any extension,
renewal, or modification thereof.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees at the Respondent Employer's Mundelein store,
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act.
(d) Participating in the posting of signs at the Munde-
lein store indicating that it represents the Respondent
Employer's employees employed there.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Employ-
er reimburse the said Company's Mundelein employees
for any initiation fees, dues, or other moneys paid or
checked off pursuant to the agreement applied to the Re-
spondent Employer's employees there or to any exten-
sion, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to
any agreement superseding it, plus interest thereon com-
puted in the manner set forth in the section of this Deci-
sion entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all fi-
nancial records and reports and all other documents nec-
essary and revelant to analyze and compute the amounts
in reimbursements due under this Order.
(c) Post in conspicuous places in the Respondent
Union's business office, meeting halls, and places where
notices to its members are customarily posted copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix B." 34 Copies of
said notice, on forms furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by an au-
thorized representative of the Respondent Union, be
posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereaf-
ter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
Union to ensure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Furnish to the Regional Director for Region 13
signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by Re-
spondent Employer at its Mundelein, Illinois, store, in
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director, shall, after being signed by the Respond-
ent Union, as indicated, be forthwith returned to the Re-
gional Director for disposition by him.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
3' See fn. 33, supra
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides were represented by
their attorneys and presented evidence, it has been found
that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act
in certain respects. To correct and remedy these viola-
tions, we have been directed to take certain actions and
to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to Na-
tional Production Workers Union, Local 707, or
any other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT recognize the above-named Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of our
employees at our Mundelein, Illinois, store, unless
and until said labor organization shall have demon-
strated its exclusive majority status pursuant to a
Board-conducted election among said employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bar-
gaining contract of January 1979 with the above-
named Union, insofar as it affects employees at the
Mundelein store, but WE WILL NOT vary or aban-
don those wages, hours, or other substantive fea-
tures of our relations with our employees, estab-
lished in performance of said agreement, or preju-
dice the assertion by employees of any rights they
have thereunder.
WE WILL NOT solicit or instruct our employees
and/or applicants for employment at our Mundelein
store to sign membership applications, dues-check-
off authorizations, and insurance enrollment forms
for the above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT deduct moneys from the wages of
our Mundelein employees and pay this over to the
above-named Union as initiation fees and dues.
WE WILL NOT post or allow the posting of signs
at our Mundelein store indicating that the above-
named Union represents our employees at that loca-
tion.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em-
ployees concerning their union activities.
WE WILL NOT inform employees and/or appli-
cants for employment that job opportunities with us
depend upon their union status and/or giving up
membership in labor organizations other than the
above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with National
Production Workers Union, Local 707, make
whole, with interest, the employees of our Munde-
lein store for dues and intiation fees paid to that
labor organization.
698
SAVE-IT DISCOUNT FOODS, INC.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the
above-named Union or any other labor organization.
SAVE-IT DISCOUNT FOODS, INC.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides were represented by
their attorneys and presented evidence, it has been found
that we have violated the National Labor Relations Act
in certain respects. To correct and remedy these viola-
tions, we have been directed to take certain actions and
to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees of Save-It Discount
Foods, Inc., at its Mundelein, Illinois, store, unless
and until we have demonstrated our exclusive ma-
jority representative status pursuant to a Board-con-
ducted election among the said employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bar-
gaining agreement, dated January 1, 1979, between
the above-named Company and ourselves, insofar as
it applies to the Mundelein store employees, or to
any extension, renewal, or modification thereof af-
fecting the said employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce the aforementioned employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL NOT participate in the posting of signs
at the above-named Employer's Mundelein store in-
dicating that we are the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the persons employed there.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Save-It Dis-
count Foods, Inc., make whole, with interest, the
employees at the Mundelein store for dues and initi-
ation fees paid by them to us.
NATIONAL PRODUCTION WORKERS UNION,
LOCAL 707
699