Shop-Rite

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 19, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 446 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

446 DECISIONS ,OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Super Markets General Corporation d/b/a Shop-
Rite and Local 919, Retail Clerks International
Association , AFL-CIO and Retail , Wholesale and
Department Store Union , AFL-CIO and its Food
Handlers Division , Local 282, Parties to-the Con-
tract . Case 2-CA-11229
Retail , Wholesale and Department -Store Union,
AFL-CIO and its Food Handlers Division, Local
282 and Local 919, Retail Clerks International
Association , AFL-CIO and- Super Markets
General Corporation d/b/a Shop -Rite, Party to
the Contract . Cases 2-CB-4480 and
2-CB-4480-2
March 19, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On November 9, 1967, Trial Examiner David
London issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondents had en-
gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the General Counsel, the
Respondent Company, and the Respondent Union
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and supporting briefs, and the Charging Union filed
exceptions.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and
hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and
' At the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the Respondent Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint because of failure to join Food Handlers
Union, Local 371, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO, as a party to this proceeding The Company's
request for permission to appeal the Trial Examiner's ruling to the Board
was denied, without prejudice to renewing its appeal in any exceptions that
might be filed In its exceptions, the Company contends that Local 371 is
an indispensable party to this proceeding because it represents certain em-
ployees in the Company's Bridgeport store involved herein The motion to
dismiss is hereby denied as we do not find that Local 371 is a necessary
party herein
' The Trial Examiner's Decision, apparently inadvertently, omitted from
the description of the Respondent Company's operations the fact that, dur-
ing the past year, the Company's gross revenue was in excess of $500,000
The Decision is hereby corrected in this respect
170 NLRB No. 61
recommendations of the Trial - Examiner3 - as
modified herein.
The Trial Examiner found ' that the Respondent
Company and the Respondent Union applied 'at a
newly established store a collective-bargaining
agreement which they had entered into following
the Union's certification as the representative of
employees at a different-store, and that the Respon-
dents thereby, and by requiring employees at the
new store to acquire membership in the Union as a
condition of employment, violated, respectively,
Sections 8(a)(1), (2), and (3), and 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the,Act. We agree, for the reasons set forth
by the Trial Examiner and also for the following ad-
ditional reasons . The Trial Examiner also found
that it was unnecessary to resolve the unit accretion
issue which had been litigated by the parties. We
find merit in the contentions of the parties that this
issue should be resolved.
The record shows that on January 16, 1967, the
Respondent Union was certified by the Board as
the collective-bargaining representative of em-
ployees at the Respondent Company's store in Dan-
bury, Connecticut. On January 28 the Respondent
Company and the Respondent Union entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement covering not the
certified unit but a geographic area which was
based on the Union's jurisdiction, and providing for
coverage of any new stores which were opened in
that geographic area.
The Respondent Company opened its store in
Bridgeport, Connecticut,' on March 8, 1967. In in-
terviewing applicants for employment at that store,
the Company, as found by the Trial Examiner,
required potential employees to designate the
Respondent Union as their collective-bargaining
representative and to authorize the Respondent
Company to check off initiation fees and dues for
the Respondent Union. The Respondents contend
that this conduct was lawful, on the ground that the
Bridgeport store is an accretion to the certified unit
of Danbury store employees because of the integra-
tion of operations, and, therefore, that it was
proper to apply to the employees at that store the
terms of their agreement.' The General Counsel
'The Respondent Company excepts to the Trial Examiner 's credibility
resolutions and charges the Trial Examiner with bias It is the Board's
established policy, however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner 's resolutions
as to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the preponderance of all the
relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall
Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3). We find no sup-
port in the record for the charge of bias
' The Trial Examiner 's Decision states that the Bridgeport store is not
within the geographic area described in the agreement, but the record
shows that it is. We hereby correct the Decision in this respect
5 The Respondent Company also urges that this is in accord with industry
practice, and its own practice whereby it has accreted more than 60 of its
75 stores by adding them to certified units on the basis of the certified
Union's geographic jurisdiction.
SHOP-RITE 447
contends that the Bridgeport store does not con-
stitute an accretion to the certified unit of Danbury
store employees.
The record shows that the Respondent Company
operates 75 retail food markets located in 5 States.
Its administrative organization is by geographical
districting, with 12 districts, each under the
direction of a district manager. The Danbury and
Bridgeport, Connecticut, stores are part of a district
which also includes two stores located in Hartsdale
and West Nyack, New York.
The Bridgeport store is a newly constructed and
newly equipped store. It is located 22 miles from
-the Danbury store, and is operated by a manager
and an assistant manager, both of whom par-
ticipated in the hiring of the Bridgeport employees
before the store opened. The store manager is in
charge of day-to-day operations. In his absence, the
assistant manager is in charge of the store. The
manager has, authority to recommend hire and
discharge, and his recommendations are generally
followed. The assistant manager can effectively
recommend hire.
Almost all the Bridgeport employees live in the
Bridgeport area. The Bridgeport store maintains
records of its employees' names, addresses, and
telephone numbers. It is larger than the Danbury
store as it had approximately 200 employees at the
time it opened, and approximately 140 employees
at the time of the hearing in this proceeding,
whereas the Danbury store, in operation since Au-
gust 8, 1966, had approximately 125 employees at
the time of the hearing. The drop in total employee
complement at Bridgeport was due to the large
number of employees who were temporarily trans-
ferred to Bridgeport for the opening of the store,
and transferred back to their initial place of em-
ployment after a short time. Moreover, approxi-
mately 12 employees were transferred to
Bridgeport from stores other -than Danbury. The
number of transfers since the opening period is
-minimal.
Each store maintains a separate bank account,
payroll, and seniority list. In addition, the
Bridgeport store does some baking on the premise;
the Danbury store does -not. The - Bridge-port store
has employees classified as pharmacy employees-on
its payrolls; 'the Danbury store has no such classifi-
cation. Although most purchasing is done centrally,
there is some local purchasing of food -items. Ad-
vertisements appear on Wednesdays for the Danbu-
ry store independently. The separate advertise-
ments for the Bridgeport store also contain the
names of the Milford and the Orange, Connecticut,
stores.
The facts herein demonstrate, and we find, that
the Bridgeport store is a separate economic units
and not an accretion to the certified Danbury store
unit, particularly as (1) the Danbury and
Bridgeport stores do not comprise an administrative
division of the Company's operations; (2) they are
separately located and serve different markets; (3)
they have separate managers who can effectively
recommend hire'and discharge; (4) they maintain
separate bank accounts, separate payrolls, and
separate- seniority lists; (5) they have separate ad-
vertising and do some separate purchasing of food
items; (6) there are differences in employees' clas-
sifications between the two stores; (7) Bridgeport
employees were recruited locally and live in the
Bridgeport area; and (8) since the initial opening
period, there has been only a minimal number of
transfers to the Bridgeport store. Moreover, there is
no bargaining history in the two-store unit.
We find, therefore, that the Respondent Com-
pany and the Respondent Union, by enforcing their
agreement with regard to the Bridgeport store em-
ployees at a time when the Respondent Union was
not the freely selected majority representative of
those employees, unlawfully impinged upon the
statutory right of such employees to express a free
choice as- to their bargaining representative. Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that the Respondent Com-
pany thereby violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3)
and- that the Respondent Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.7
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and the entire record in these cases, we hereby
adopt the Conclusions of Law of the Trial Ex-
aminer, but correct the name of the Respondent
Union by inserting, at the beginning of line 2 of
Conclusion of Law 2, "and Retail, Wholesale and
Department Store Union, AFL-CIO."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
below, and -hereby orders that the Respondent
Company, Super- Markets General Corporation
d/b/a Shop-Rite, Bridgeport, Connecticut, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, and the
6 Spartan's Industries, Inc, 169 NLRB No 47
' Masters-Lake Success, Inc, 124 NLRB 580; Dura Corporation, 153
NLRB 592; Sunset House, 1"67 NLRB 870
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent Union, Retail, Wholesale and Depart-
ment Store Union, AFL-CIO, and its Food Han-
dlers Division, Local 282, its officers, representa-
tives, and agents , shall take the action set forth in
the 'Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as
herein , modified:
Insert the following paragraph to precede the
first indented paragraph in Appendix A and in Ap-
pendix B:8
"After a trial in which all parties had the oppor-
tunity to present their evidence, the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated the law
and has ordered us to post this Notice and to keep
the promises that we make in this Notice."
% In accord with our recent decision in Bilyeu Motor Corp, 161 NLRB
982, and Macy's Missouri-Kansas Division, 162 NLRB 754, we shall amend
the notices which the Respondents are required to sign and post `
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID LONDON, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed February 10, 1967, in Case 2-CA-11229 by
Local 919, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO,- and thereafter amended, and another
charge filed by the aforementioned Association on
February 17, 1967, in Case 2-CB-4480,, also
thereafter amended, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for Region 2, on -June 9^, 1967, con-
solidated said two proceedings and issued a con-
solidated complaint in the above-entitled proceed-
ing against Super Markets General Corporation
d/b/a Shop-Rite, hereafter referred to as Respon-
dent Company, and Retail, Wholesale. and Depart-
ment Store Union, AFL-CIO, and its Food Han-
dlers Division, Local 282, hereafter referred to as
Respondent Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices,' the
consolidated complaint, as amended at the hearing
which followed, alleges that Respondent Company
has engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2),
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Ac t) -and that the Respondent Union has engaged
in violations of Section 8(b)(j)(A) and 8(b)(2) _of
the Act.
Pursuant to-due notice,,a hearing in the above-
entitled matter was held before me-at,New York,
New York-, on July 12 and 31_ and August 1, 1967.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent
Company filed briefs which have been fully con-
sidered: Respondent Union-filed a brief 'state ment
adopting Respondent Company's brief as its own.
Upon the entire record in the proceeding,' and
my observation of the witnesses while testifying, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT COMPANY
Respondent Company is, and has been at all
times material herein, a corporation duly organized
under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the
State of Delaware. At all times material herein,
Respondent Company has maintained an office in
Cranford; New Jersey, and retail places of business
in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and various other
place's of business in the State of Connecticut and
other States, where it is, and has been at all times
material herein, engaged in the retail sale and dis-
tribution of food and related products. During the
year preceding the commencement of this action,
which period is representative of its' annual opera-
tions generally, Respondent Company, in the
course and conduct of its business, purchased and
caused to be transported and delivered to. its Con-
necticut places of business food products and other
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
which were transported and delivered to its Con-
necticut places of business in interstate commerce
directly from, States of the United States other than
the State of Connecticut. Respondent Company ad-
mits, and I find, that at all times material herein it
was, and presently is, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent Union and Local 919, Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO, the Charging
Union herein, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The 'principal issue " to be decided herein is
whether, under the` circumstances found below,
Respondent Company and Respondent Union
could unilaterally impose upon the employees of
Respondent Company's newly established store in
Bridgeport, Connecticut, their earlier collective-
bargaining agreement for the employees of Respon-
dent Company's store ii Danbury, ,Connecticut. .
Respondent Company -operates a ',chain of 75
retail food markets in the States of New York, New
Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.
Its', operations are divided into -12 districts, each
under the direction of a -district 'manager. District
12 consists-of four-stores located in.Danbury, Con-
' During the hearing, ruling was reserved on the objection of both
Respondents to the admissabdity of C P Exh 2, the oblection,is hereby
sustained, Other motions on which ruling was reserved are disposed of in
accordance with the findings and conclusions that follow
SHOP-RITE 449
necticut, Nyack, New York, Hartsdale, New York,
and Bridgeport, Connecticut, the last named being
the store with which this proceeding is concerned.
The Danbury store was opened for business on Au-
gust 8, 1966.
On January 16, 1967,2 in Board Cases
2-RC-14456 and 14461, Respondent Union was
certified as collective-bargaining representative of
all employees of Respondent Company in the Dan-
bury store including appetizing department em-
ployees, but excluding, inter alia , meat department
employees.
Following that certification, Respondent Com-
pany and Respondent Union, on January 28, 1967,
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement ef-
fective until January 6, 1970. The unit of em-
ployees covered by that agreement was not the cer-
tified Danbury unit described immediately above,
but a different and broader geographic unit
described as follows: "All employees working in
any and all present and future retail stores of any
type (including each and every department therein
except the meat, poultry, and delicatessen depart-
ments ) located within that area of the State of Con-
necticut West of an approximate North-South line
ten (10) miles East of Route 8 in said State, which
the Employer or any subsidiary thereof owns,
leases, licenses, operates, or controls directly or in-
directly or in which,the Employer or any subsidiary
thereof has a controlling interest." The contract
contained a clause- requiring employees in that
broader unit to acquire and maintain membership
in good standing in Respondent Union and a dues
checkoff clause.
About'the time of Respondent Union's certifica-
tion and 'the execution of the Danbury contract
aforementioned, Respondent Company was en-
gaged in the construction of a store in Bridgeport ,
Connecticut, approximately 22 miles from Danbury
and not within the territorial area described in the
contract of January 28. During January Respondent
Company placed advertisements in newspapers in
the Bridgeport area seeking-applicants for employ-
ment at its Bridgeport store, which ultimately
opened for business on March 8, 1967. Applicants
were interviewed at that store over a period of
several weeks commencing January 30, 1967.
These interviews were conducted under the super-
vision of Charles -Yaede, Respondent Company's
personnel field representative, and a team consist-
ing of Gerald Azzarello, Bridgeport store manager,
Joseph Carrino, assistant store manager , Lucille
Roszkowski, a confidential clerical employee, and
one Mooney. - -
- When successful applicants were notified that
they were to be employed, each was handed a kit or
folder containing a number of personnel docu-
ments. With respect thereto, Respondent Company,
at the, opening of the hearing, admitted "that as
part of its hiring procedures, it furnished its em-
ployees with a folder and that its employees were in-
structed to sign the various papers in said folder ...
that among said papers were cards deisgnating
Respondent [Union] as the collective-bargaining
representative," these cards having been provided
by Respondent Union. Though Respondent Com-
pany's counsel, in making that admission, added
that "the employees, when they were given the
folder, were told with respect to the card for
[Respondent, Union], that they had a 30-day period
under a collective-bargaining agreement during
which they could sign said card," I find- no credible
evidence in support of that contention.
Carrino, Roszkowski, and Mooney of the inter-
viewing team were not called as witnesses . Respon-
dents' failure to call them warrants the inference
that, if adduced, their testimony would not be
favorable to Respondents. N.L.R.B. v. Remington
Rand, Inc., 94 F.2d 862, 871; N.L.R.B. v. Wallick
and Schwalm, 198 F.2d 477, 483 (C.A. 6). Azzarel-
lo testified that he and Roszkowski "handed out all
the kits and instructed the recipients thereof to sign
all the papers in the kit." Indeed, employee
DeLibro testified, without contradiction, that after
he signed all the papers in the kit except the union
designation card, he returned the kit to Rosz-
kowski. She examined the-kit, -called Carrino and
told him that DeLibro had not signed the union
card. After being told by Carrino that he "had to
fill out these union cards," DeLibro signed and
handed the card to Carrino. On February 10, 1967,
Respondent Company's personnel supervisor sent
to Respondent Union the cards of 27 employees at
its Bridgeport _ store _ designating the, Respondent
Union as their. collective-bargaining representative,
This was followed on February 24, -1967, by a
dispatch of 130 similiar cards, including authority
to deduct union initiation fees and dues. Yaede
testified that when the Bridgeport store opened on
March 8 it had approximately 150 employees.
In any event, Respondents, in their joint brief, no
longer make any contention that signing of the
cards was purely voluntary on the part of its
Bridgeport employees. Indeed, in their brief, both
Respondents admit that the Danbury "contract was
applied to all [Bridgeport] employees at their date
of hire, [and that] the bulk of said employees were
hired during the first two weeks in February." Both
Respondents further admit in their 'brief that the
Bridgeport employees "at some ^ point after they
were hired, also executed checkoff cards and the
Company commenced checking off union dues."s
On the entire record I find that at the time -they
were accepted for employment, and prior to com-
mencing employment with Respondent Company at
its Bridgeport store on March 8, employees were
2 Unless otherwise ,pecified, all references to dates are to the year 1967 (440) and the context in which the statement app. ars make it clear that the
Though the text of their brief states that this took place with reference reference to Danbury was inadvertently made, and that it was intended to
to the "employees in the Danbury store," the transcript page reference apply to the Bridgeport store
350-999 0 - 71 - 30
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
required to comply with the terms of the Danbury
contract and to sign cards designating Respondent
Union as their collective-bargaining representative
and authorizing Respondent Company to check off
Respondent Union 's initiation fees and dues.
It is the contention of the General Counsel that
by reason of an earlier organizational campaign
waged , and an asserted claim by the Charging,
Union herein ( Retail Clerks ) that it represented a
majority of Respondent Company's employees at
the Bridgeport store, the subsequent extension and
enforcement of the Danbury union -security con-
tract to the Bridgeport employees was, and is, viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(I), (2), (3 ) and Section
9(b)( I )(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act. I agree.
During the morning of January 30, the day appli-
cants for employment first appeared at the
Bridgeport store for their initial interviews , John F.
Phinney, International representative of the Retail
Clerks, and two other officials of the same or-
ganization , visited the Bridgeport premises. Phinney
asked Yaede if the Retail Clerks could " have table
space to sign -up employees in the Retail Clerks
Union ." Yaede refused , stating it would not be
"fair to the other union." During that morning, John
Horan , International representative of Respondent
Union , observed Phinney and other representatives
of the Retail Clerks " signing people and handing
out literature at the front door to prospective em-
ployees." On February 3, about 4:30 p.m., Yaede
told Phinney " that the Company had signed a con-
tract at 2 o'clock that afternoon covering the
Bridgeport store."
On the following Tuesday or Wednesday, Phin-
ney demanded that Yaede extend to the Retail
Clerks "the same privilege that he had extended to
[Respondent Union] , that is, having the manage-
ment team sign up for [ Respondent Union ]" inside
the store . Yaede stated he would have to check
with Respondent Company's headquarters in New
Jersey, went to a nearby telephone , and was gone
for 10-15 minutes . Upon his return , he told Phin-
ney "that the Company's position was the same as
the past Friday , that the Bridgeport store had been
accreted to Danbury and if [the Retail Clerks] in-
sisted on the same privileges, that he would have to
call a policeman and have [them] removed."4
On February 3 the Retail Clerks caused a tele-
gram to be delivered to Respondent Company's
store in Bridgeport advising Respondent Company
that the Retail Clerks represented a majority of its
employees and demanding recognition . It specifi-
cally cautioned Respondent Company not to deal
with or recognize any other organization which may
claim to represent these employees.
It is the contention of both Respondents that the
Bridgeport employees were legally accreted to, and
became a part of, the unit employed at Danbury
and therefore subject to the terms of their Danbury
4 Phinney testified that "it was very cold outside and [they) had a bad
snowstorm, a blizzard during that time "
contract executed on January 28. To sustain that
theory and contention, considerable evidence was
received to establish that the employees in the two
stores jointly constitute a single appropriate unit.
The General Counsel on the other hand contends
that the Bridgeport store employees alone con-
stitute a single appropriate unit, and that they have
not been legally accreted to any other store or
stores.
For purpose of decision on the issues raised by
the pleadings herein, I need not, and do not, decide
the unit question. It may be assumed, arguendo,
that the two-store unit contended for by Respon-
dents is an appropriate unit. That is not to deny,
however, that a unit composed only of the
Bridgeport store employees is also an appropriate
unit., As the Board stated in Dixie Belle Mills, Inc.,
139 NLRB 629, 631, "assuming that the unit urged
by the employer . . may be the most appropriate
unit, this does not establish it as the only ap-
propriate one."
However, as the Board stated on another occa-
sion, in a decision enforced by the court of ap-
peals and affirmed by the Supreme Court, "this is
not a `refusal to bargain' case [in which it becomes
necessary to determine the appropriateness of the
unit]. The Respondent Company is [here] charged
with having unlawfully contributed support to the
Respondent Union by according it recognition as
the exclusive bargaining representative of an agreed
upon group of employees, although it had no right
to act as such representative. The vice of such action
is the extension of recognition. The assistance is not
rendered any the less potent and unlawful by the
fact that in a `refusal to bargain' case the Board
might not find the [single store] unit appropriate."
Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corporation, 122 NLRB
1289, 1291; enfd. sub nom. International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.
280 F.2d 616; affd. 366 U.S. 731.
Here, the gravaman of the offense charged is
that, in violation of the proviso to Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act granting employees a grace period of 30
days following the beginning of their employment
in which to determine whether they desired
representation by Respondent Union, both Respon-
dents interfered with, restrained, and coerced the
Bridgeport employees by unlawfully requiring
them, on or before February 24, to acquire and
maintain membership in Respondent Union as a
condition of employment before their employment
began on March 8. By maintaining and enforcing
that hiring procedure, Respondent Company vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act, and
Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and 8(b)(2) of the Act. Masters-Lake Success, Inc.,
124 NLRB 580, 592-593; Girard Services, Inc., 134
NLRB 1753, 1759.
' Sec Sav-On Drugs, Inc, 138 NLRB 1032, Allied Super Markets, Inc ,
167 NLRB 361, Hilton-Bumps Hotel Co. Inc , 167 NLRB 221, fn 6
SHOP-RITE 451
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE-UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON -COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in sec-
tion III, above, occurring in connection with
Respondent Company's operations described in
section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I recommend that
they be required to cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act. I have found that
Respondent Company unlawfully recognized and
rendered support to Respondent Union at the
Bridgeport store and unlawfully enforced a bargain-
ing contract containing union-security provisions
with that organization. I shall, therefore, recom-
mend that Respondent Company_ withdraw and
withhold all recognition from Respondent Union as
the collective-bargaining representative of its
Bridgeport employees and cease giving effect at
Bridgeport to its contract of January 28, 1967, with
that organization, or to any extension, renewal,
modification, or supplement thereto, or to any su-
perseding contract, unless and until Respondent
Union is certified by the Board as such representa-
tive. However, nothing herein shall be construed as
requiring Respondent Company to vary or abandon
the wages, hours, seniority, or other substantive
features established in the performance of said con-
tract, or to prejudice the assertion by employees of
any rights they may have thereunder.
I also recommend that Respondents be required,
jointly and severally, to reimburse all employees of
Respondent Company's Bridgeport store, present
and former, for dues and initiation fees unlawfully
exacted from them, with interest, as provided in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 133 NLRB 716.
Respondent Company's coercion of employees to
join Respondent Union and its potent support-and
assistance to that organization warrant the in-
ference that the commission of similar unfair labor
practices by them may be anticipated in the future.
The remedy should be coextensive with the threat,
and I'therefore recommend that Respondents be
ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any
manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by
Section 7 of.the Act. - -
Upon the, basis of the foregoing findings, of fact,
and on the entire record in the case, I make the fol-
lowing: -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Super Markets , General Corporation d/b/a
Shop-Rite is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Local 919, Retail Clerks International As-
sociation , AFL-CIO, and Retail , Wholesale and
Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, and its
Food Handlers Division , Local 282, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By assisting and recognizing Respondent
Union , by maintaining and enforcing a contract
containing union-security provisions , thereby en-
couraging membership in Respondent Union,
Respondent Company has engaged in unfair` labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2)
and (3 ) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing , Respondent Company has
engaged in unfair labor practices within - the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By obtaining recognition and by maintaining
and enforcing a contract containing union-security
provisions , thereby causing Respondent Company
to discriminate against employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, Respondent Union-has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
6. By the foregoing , Respondent Union has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the