The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 458 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not included within the SPAD office and clerical unit at the Center
Line facility.' Accordingly, we shall deny the Petitioner's motion to
amend certification.
[The Board denied the motion of International Union, United Au-
tomobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW) AFL-CIO, to amend the certifications in Cases Nos. 7-RC-
787,7-RC-1000, and 7-RC-1322.]
3 Chrysler Corporation, 129 NLRB 407
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. and Amalgam-
ated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
Local 327, AFL-CIO
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. and Retail
Clerks International Association , Local No. 1691 , AF,L-CIO.
Cases ' Nos. 15-CA-1904 and 15-CA-1891. November 00, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 29, 1961, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
and Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North Amer-
ica, Local 327, AFL-CIO, filed briefs in support of the Trial Exam-
iner's Intermediate Report.
The Board l 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations 2 of the Trial Examiner.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Rodgers , Fanning,
and Brown]
2 The Respondent filed exceptions to all of the Trial Examiner 's recommendations re-
garding the remedial provisions contained in the Intermediate Report. With respect to
the notice provisions , the Trial Examiner recommended ( 1) that Nichols , Respondent's
vice president in charge of the New Orleans unit, sign the notice to employees ; (2) that
said notice be posted in all of the Respondent 's stores in the New Orleans unit ; and
(3) that Respondent assemble its employees in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, stores and
read the notice to them and, additionally, that copies of the notice be mailed to all
employees, supervisors, and officials in Respondent's employ in the Baton Rouge stores
With one exception, we agree that these requirements are appropriate to effectively remedy
134 NLRB No. 52.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 459
ORDER
Upon the entire record in these cases, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Great At-
lantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, its offi-
cers, agents; successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully threatening employees and promising them bene-
fits, unlawfully interrogating employees, and unlawfully inducing
employees to engage in surveillance of other employees in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,' to form
labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or` other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or
all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor 'organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at each of its stores within the Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
area, copies of the - notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 3
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond-
ent's vice president in charge of the New Orleans unit, be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in each of its stores in the Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, area, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Assemble and read the attached notice to all its employees,
supervisors, and officials of each of its Baton Rouge stores, within 15
days from the date of the service of this Decision and Order. Such
the violations found herein with respect to the Trial Examiner's recommendation num-
bered ( 2) above, we find merit in Respondent 's exception . Under this recommended provi-
sion, the Respondent would be required to post notices in approximately 85 stores located
throughout a four - State area As the record herein discloses that the unfair labor prac-
tices occurred only in the five stores in the Baton Rouge area , and did not extend into
any of the other stores in the broader New Orleans unit, we shall require only that the
Respondent post the notices in the Baton Rouge stores . Arthur Colton Company , et at.,
109 NLRB 50
'In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAl'1ON S BOARD
notice to be read by the grocery assistant superintendent or a responsi-
ble official in the same or superior position.
(c) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, un-
sealed stamped envelopes bearing the names and addresses of each of
Respondent's employees, supervisors, and officials of its Baton Rouge
stores, together with sufficient copies of the attached notice, also to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, and
signed by Respondent's vice president in charge of the New Orleans
unit, to be mailed to each such employee, supervisor, and official of its
Baton Rouge stores.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region,
in writing, within 10 days from the receipt of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act,,as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Amalgamated Meat
Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 327, AFL-
CIO, or Retail Clerks International Association, Local No. 1691,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our employees,
by threatening them with discharge, loss of jobs, or closing our
stores because of their membership and activities in the afore-
mentioned or in any other labor organization; or by promising
our employees changes of working conditions, wage increases, or
jobs for their relatives, on condition that they and/or their rela-
tives do not join or remain members of any labor organization;
or by requesting our employees to engage in acts of surveillance;
or by interrogating our employees about their union membership
and activities or that of any other employees in a manner con-
stituting interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL furnish to the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region, National Labor Relations Board, stamped envelopes bear-
ing the names and addresses of every employee, supervisor, and
official of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., of our
Baton Rouge stores, with a sufficient number of copies of this
notice signed by the Company's vice president in charge of the
New Orleans unit to be mailed to each person who is currently
employed by the Company as an employee or supervisor in our
Baton Rouge stores.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 461
WE WILL assemble and read this notice to all our employees,
supervisors and officials of each of our Baton Rouge stores.
WE WILL post copies of this notice at each of our stores in the
Baton Rouge area, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily placed.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the
aforementioned or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act.
If you have personal knowledge that any official, supervisor, or
other agent of this Company has done any of those things described
above as unfair labor practices, or has engaged in other unfair labor
practices, you should notify the Regional Director, National Labor
Relations Board, Fifteenth Region, 820 Lowich Building, 2026
St. Charles Avenue, New Orleans 13, Louisiana. Telephone number
529-2411.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC
TEA COMPANY, INC.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
Vice President.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with all parties represented , was heard before Alba B . Martin,
the duly designated Trial Examiner , in Baton Rouge , Louisiana, on May 25, 1961,
on complaint of the General Counsel and answer of The Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Company, Inc., herein called the Respondent . The issues litigated were whether
Respondent, through the activities of a number of its superintendents , store man-
agers , and other supervisors , committed numerous alleged threats and interroga-
tions and requested employees to spy upon the union membership and activities of
other employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. The General Counsel
filed a brief relating to the remedy which has been carefully considered.
Respondent cross-examined the General Counsel 's witnesses but did not call any
witnesses to refute the General Counsel's case -in-chief.
Upon the entire record , and from my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent , The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company , Inc., in its answer ad-
mitted that it operated a number of retail grocery stores located in a majority of
462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the States of the United States and that its gross sales during the year ending De-
cember 31, 1960, exceeded $10,000,000. Respondent admitted, and I find, that at all
times material herein Respondent is and has been engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 327,
AFL-CIO, referred to herein as Meat Cutters, is a labor organization within the.
meaning of the Act.
Retail Clerks International Association, Local No. 1691, AFL-CIO, herein called
Retail Clerks, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Interference, restraint , and coercion
From at least sometime in November or December 1960, until the hearing herein
on May 25, 1961, three unions have attempted to organize and/or been sought by
the employees of Respondent in a number of Respondent's retail stores in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. This conclusion flows from the following facts. On Decem-
ber 9, 1960, the Meat Cutters filed a petition for the meat department employees in
these stores, which matter is now pending before the Board-Case No. 15-RC-2319
(not published in NLRB volumes). On January 30, 1961, Local No. 5 of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America filed a petition for a clerks' unit in these stores, which petition was
withdrawn on February 23, 1961-Case No. 15-RC-2338. On March 3, 1961, the
Retail Clerks filed a petition for a clerks' unit in these stores, which petition is now
pending before the Board.
The alleged unfair labor practices herein were committed by the following indi-
viduals, who were alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answer to be super-
visors and agents of Respondent: Rossa Elbert Smith, grocery assistant superintend-
ent; H. D. Shows, meat assistant superintendent; E. M. Parsons, meat superintendent;
R. L. Spencer, grocery superintendent; Alvin Lejeune, store manager; Emmett
Sullivan, store manager; Frank Serio, store manager; G. L. Hisaw, store manager;
John Siragusa, produce manager; and Robert Mitchell, meat market manager.
These supervisors will be referred to hereafter by their titles and/or their last names.
According to the credited testimony of Malcolm L. Shelby, a 22-year-old grocery
clerk who impressed me as a credible witness, one day in late January 1961, after
a Teamsters' meeting the night before, Store Manager Hisaw followed him to the
back of the store when he reported for work and asked him "How was the union
meeting last night?" During the conversation that followed Hisaw interrogated
Shelby as to how many employees from his store were present at the meeting, who
had taken Shelby to the union meeting, and the identity of those who had attended
the meeting. During this conversation Hisaw observed that he knew who had
taken Shelby to the union meeting and identified this person as "Mr. Bass "
One day in February 1961, Hisaw went into the cooler where Shelby was work-
ing and, with reference to the Retail Clerks, asked Shelby if he "would feel around
and see how many employees are for the union and how many employees have been
talking about the union." Shelby refused on the ground that he did not want to
see any of them lose their jobs.
At an unidentified time Shelby was away from work for a week in connection
with a serious accident suffered by Shelby's brother. Upon his return he was en-
titled to pay for 8 hours he had earned before going away and also, under company
policy, for 1 day's pay in connection with the family tragedy. When Hisaw handed
him his check it was for a sum which amounted to a half week's pay for Shelby,
which was more thah 2 days' pay. When Shelby protested, Hisaw replied, "No, I
talked it over with Mr. Smith [Grocery Assistant Superintendent Smith] and we
both agreed that we would pay you a half week's salary." Hisaw and Shelby then
went out and looked at the latter's automobile, which had been in an accident, and
as they were walking back into the store Hisaw said, "Mal, I would like for you to
help me. I need some help. . The union [referring to the Retail Clerks] men
were in here on Saturday handing out letters. . Did you know anything about
a meeting that was going on tonight?" When Shelby replied that he did not know
of such a union meeting Hisaw said, "I am not telling you to go to this union meet-
ing but if you do I would like to know what is going on there and I would like to
know who is there from our store." Then Hisaw had Shelby read the union "letter"
which had been handed out the previous Saturday and Hisaw pointed out the address
of the meeting to Shelby. Shelby said that he would go to the meeting but that he
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 463
would rather not talk to Hisaw about the meeting or the Union in the store in front
of the other employees. Hisaw said that that was satisfactory, and the matter was
left that that they would later discuss the union meeting over the telephone.
The night after the union meeting Hisaw telephoned Shelby, asked him what they
were talking about at the union meeting, how many were at the meeting, how many
from their store were at the meeting, and who they were. When Shelby hesitated
about naming names, Hisaw said, "You are not doing me any good unless you are
going to tell me who was there." Shelby begged off on the ground that he "would
rather not squeal on my fellow employees."
The next day Hisaw went into the cooler where Shelby was working, and said, "I
want to show you something," pulling $2 out of his pocket. When Shelby protested
that he did not want his money Hisaw said in substance that he wanted him to take
it, that it was for gasoline. So saying, Hisaw put the money into Shelby's hand and
turned and walked out of the cooler.
One day in March, Grocery Assistant Superintendent Smith, whose supervisory
authority extended over all of Respondent's stores in the Baton Rouge area, spoke to
Shelby where the latter was working in the coffee department, asking him how
many were at the union meeting-referring to a Retail Clerks' meeting. Then
Smith asked how many were there from the store in which Shelby worked. Smith
said, "I know who they are." He then asked Shelby if the latter thought that two
named employees were for the Union.
One afternoon in December 1960, as James Lay, a grocery clerk who was also
studying at Louisiana State University which is located in Baton Rouge, came into
the store about 3 o'clock and went to the backroom "as usual to punch in," Store
Manager Hisaw called him to the back of the stockroom, said, "I need some help,"
and asked him if he had heard anything about "the union ." Lay allowed that
he had heard some talk. Hisaw asked if anyone had approached Lay about the
union , what Lay thought about it, "how I stood with the union, and I told him that
I thought I was against the union." Then with reference to another stock clerk
and a friend of Lay's, Raiford Bass, Hisaw asked Lay if Bass had approached him,
Lay replying that he had not. Hisaw said "that he thought Mr. Bass knew a good bit
about the union and he asked me if I would go to coffee and lunch break with him
and casually find out what he knew about the union." Lay hesitated on the ground
that Bass was a friend of his and he could not go against a friend. To this Hisaw
said, "What about yourself, Mr. Bass is putting your job into jeopardy and if the
union goes on strike you will . lose your job." 1 Hisaw added that if Lay lost
his job Hisaw would hate to see him drop out of school. To this Lay replied that
in fact if he did lose his job he would have to drop out of school. At this point
Hisaw again said that he needed Lay's help and Lay replied that he did not see how
he could help him.
About May 4, 1961, in Hisaw's office, Hisaw asked grocery clerk Robert Lartigue
if he had talked to Billy Hudgens about the union-presumably referring to the Re-
tail Clerks. Hudgens had until recently worked for Respondent but was then as-
sisting the Retail Clerks in trying to organize Respondent's employees in Baton
Rouge. Hisaw then said that Hudgens had not been fired from Respondent but had
resigned. Hisaw asked if Lartigue remembered the occasion when Respondent had
read a letter to the employees saying, among other things, that Respondent was
against unions, that it has good working conditions and working hours, and that it
does not need a union . Then Hisaw told Lartigue that several of Respondent's
stores in New York had been closed on account of the union and that they are still
closed. He said that "If you want to talk to some people about the unions, there are
several people in here that you can talk to," mentioning an employee whose first
name was "Bill ." Hisaw continued that "of course, if you want to find out
more . . . you can talk to people in the meat department and let me know later
what they say, what they think about it. .
Mrs. Virgie Joyce Beach, who worked at the meat counter in one of the stores,
credibly testified that in early December 1960, Meat Assistant Superintendent Shows
indicated to her that he knew that she was against "the union," presumably referring
to the Meat Cutters. Shows continued that he would like her "to find out for me if
your .son-in-law is for the union or against the union and would you set him
straight. . . Then Shows asked, "How about your sister and your sister-in-law,
are they for the union or against the union?"
E. M. Parsons is meat superintendent for the New Orleans unit of Respondent
which includes its Baton Rouge stores. In early December 1960, Parsons asked
'On direct examination Lay testified Hisaw said Lay would "automatically" lose his
job. On cross-examination this word was "probably" and then again "automatically."
In either case Hisaw's threat amounted to a threat of loss of employment.
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Beach if her daughter would like to work for Respondent. She replied that her
daughter would because she had just been married and "they owed a lot of bills."
Parsons told her to find out if her daughter was on the right side and to report to
Shows and they would try to find a place for her. Several days later Beach told
Shows that Parsons asked her to find out if her daughter was not in favor of the
union, in which case he would give her a job. The daughter went to work in one
of the stores in Baton Rouge in late December or early January.
The cross-examination of Beach revealed that she had written two complaining
letters to Parsons. Beach appeared to me to be a credible witness and nothing in
the cross-examination of her was persuasive of a contrary conclusion.
According to the credited testimony of Ruth Sigrest, a meat clerk in one of the
stores, in late December 1960, Meat Superintendent Parsons, at the end of the meat
counter and in the presence of employee Betty Pipkins and Meat Assistant Superin-
tendent Shows, "asked us whether anyone approached us to sign a union card or talk
anything to us about the Union." Sigrest replied that they had not heard anything
about it. Parsons said that "there have been enough cards signed and that a"petition
has been filed on it. .. Then he asked if they knew one Sybil Lewis and asked
how long since Sigrest had seen her. Then Parsons said "that if anyone approached
us about signing a card or talking union to let him know ." He said to let Mr.
Shows or Bob Mitchell know.
Mrs. Laverne Hudgens worked in the meat department of one of Respondent's
stores in Baton Rouge under Meat Superintendent Parsons and Meat Assistant
Superintendent Shows. According to her credited testimony, about the middle of
January 1961, at the end of the meat counter, Shows "asked me if Mildred Grain-
manin was for the union or not and whether I heard her say anything about the
union.. . Hudgens replied that she had not heard her say anything. Then
Shows "told me to keep my eyes and ears open and find out all that I could and let
him know." At that time Hudgens' husband was assistant store manager at another
of Respondent's stores in Baton Rouge '
About the middle of December 1960, Store Manager Sullivan asked employee
Dorothy Yoes during her lunch hour to come back and talk with him. Yoes
weighed produce in the produce department. In the back of the store "He asked
me if -I had heard anything about this union [the union is not otherwise identified]
and I told him, no, that I had not heard 'anything about it." Sullivan then said, "I
would like for you to do something for me, for you to go around and talk to the
girls sand see what they have to say about the union . . . don't boost the union up.
Talk to them and see what they have to say and then come back and let me know
what they said . regardless of what you hear, no matter how unimportant it
seems to you, as long as it is anything about the union I want you to tell me."
Yoes said that she would. The following day Sullivan asked her what she had
found out for him and Yoes replied that she had found out nothing, that when she
mentioned the word "union" the employees "clammed up" and did not say a word.
Sullivan then asked "Are you sure that Juanita Tarver or Gloria has not mentioned
anything about the union to you at all?" When Yoes replied that they 'had not,
Sullivan said, "Well, just keep listening and anything you hear, tell me about it."
The day after she had first been contacted by a union at her home the night
before, employee Juanita Tarver took the initiative and had a conversation with
Store Manager Sullivan about it. She told him that she felt it was her obligation as
an employee to discuss the matter with him because she was in such a position that
she could not afford to lose her job. Sullivan "told me there would be a lot of
people losing their jobs because of the union and he said Mr. Nichols 2 had told
him that he would close the stores before they would allow a union to come in.
He told me for me to keep my name off of the cards and anything of the union,
and that the A & P would stand behind their loyal employees."
In 'about early February 1961, Retail Clerks sent a telegram to the "Labor
Board" about Juanita Tarver and Winnie Mae Hood. A few days later, Store
Manager Sullivan and Grocery Assistant Superintendent Smith called these two
employees into the backroom where Smith read the telegram, told them that the
Union was wasting money sending the telegram, that he and Sullivan did the
hiring and firing, and that nobody else could do that. Smith made some references
to the personal lives of the two employees, to which the latter took exception.
Hood testified that Smith also said that "they had cleaned up Government Street
store and they would clean up the rest of them " Tarver did not remember that
such a statement was made. Hood was one of Respondent's cashiers and she
appeared to me to be a credible witness. I credit her testimony. In the context
2 Nichols is vice president of Respondent and head of the New Orleans unit of Respond-
ent which includes the Baton Rouge stores
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY ' INC. 465
of this conversation I find that this threat related to the union activities of the
employees.
In January or February 1961 , Grocery Superintendent Spencer , a supervisor over
the New 'Orleans,unit• of Respondent which included Respondent's stores in Baton
Rouge, and Grocery Assistant Superintendent Smith called five employees into the
backroom and held a short meeting with them . Spencer read something to the
employees for a few minutes . Then Spencer said to them in substance that he knew
they were dissatisfied because they had gone outside the Company for help, they
had gone to a union ; and he asked each of them what that employee was dissatisfied
about. The employees stated that they were dissatisfied over not rotating the regis-
ters, over being corrected in front of customers , over not being paid for holidays in
the past, and because they had not received raises which were overdue. Spencer
replied to these grievances that he would straighten them out and make them all
right with theemployees if they would help him keep the union out . Spencer added
that raises for three of the employees had been on his desk for several weeks and
that they would have to go through some other office.
In early December 1960, in the backroom of one of Respondent 's stores, Store
Manager Lejeune asked stock clerk Frederick Betz if he knew anything about "the
union ." Betz replied that he did not . Lejeune said "we heard that you were pushing
the union ." Betz replied that he was not. Lejeune then said , "We don't want any
union people around here."
In late January 1961, employee Betz received through the mail a letter from the
"Teamsters Union ," which he took to the office of Grocery Assistant Superintendent
Smith . Betz showed the letter to Smith and asked him whether Smith should go
to the meeting written about in the letter. In substance , Smith replied that it was
up to Betz , that he should go if he wanted to. Then Betz asked if Smith wanted him
to find out anything at the meeting, to which Smith replied that Betz should find
out what he could, particularly the identity of any people Betz knew , and to let Smith
know the information acquired afterward. Betz told him that he did not know
very many people , but only those in his own store . Smith said that he would have
a man go with Betz , and Smith thereupon made a telephone call and arranged to
have a "Mr. Wagner ," who worked in one of Respondent 's other stores , meet Betz
at one of the stores before the meeting that night . Betz met Wagner and they went
to the "Teamsters Hall" where they found that "no one was showing up." Wagner
asked Betz if he was , involved in "the union in any type of way" and Betz replied
that he was not. Wagner said, "We are trying to weed out all of the people in
the union and before long we will have them ." Then Betz and Wagner went to a
Retail Clerks' meeting then going on at another union hall and attended the meeting
and observed what happened . The following day 'Smith was out of town. The
second following day, Store Manager Lejeune told Betz that Smith wanted to see
him in Smith 's car out in the parking lot. Betz went out to the parking lot where
Smith asked him to tell him all that he had found out at the meeting and , "I told
him everything that was said , all the strategy used by the union and everything.
He asked me if I recognized anyone and 'I told him that I did not see anyone that I
knew. I told him about that heavy-set girl that was speaking up for the union and
[he] said that he knew all about her, that she was strictly for the union. I told him
a few more things about the meeting and he told me we should break it up'because
someone might see us and they may get suspicious .. . he told me that he would
come to my house and see me again "
The next workday , which was a Monday , after Betz finished his day's work, Smith
came to Betz ' house and interrogated him further about anything he knew about
the union-presumably the Retail Clerks. Smith said in substance that it would not
be long before he would be weeding out everybody who was for the union. Betz
made some mention of the pay raises the employees would get through a union-to
which Smith replied by going-to his car and bringing 'back 'a contract with another
grocery chain and pointing out that in that contract the wages were the same as
Respondent was paying . Smith asked why Respondent's employees should join a
union when tey get the same pay already.
Several times thereafter in the store Smith asked Betz if he knew or had heard
anything about a union.
At some later date, Betz received another union letter about a meeting, which
letter he showed to 'Store Manager Lejeune, asking him whether or not he should
go to this meeting . Lejeune replied that Betz had better not go to the meeting
because if he did he might get into trouble.
Betz admitted that from time to time thereafter he volunteered some information
about "the union" to Lejeune. _
630849-62-vol. 134-31
466, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The day after a Retail. Clerks' meeting in about the middle of February- 1961,
after employee James D. Shelton had had a 'conversation on company time in the
store with a Retail Clerks' representative, Produce Manager Siragusa,,went over to
Shelton and asked him about the conversation. Siragusa then warned Shelton that
he had better quit talking to the union representatives and going to meetings, "that
I was going to go ahead and get fired. . A few moments later, Siragusa asked
Shelton why he went to the meeting, Shelton seplying that he had gone because'
he had a right to go and wanted to find out what was going on. To this Siragusa
said, "Don't get smart or I'll tell Mr. Serio"-the store manager. Shelton replied
that he was not afraid of him, to tell Serio or anyone else that he had gone to the
meeting. Shelton is 20 years old and was a credible witness.
Conclusions
The record in this case proved-that over a period of several mouths'in late 1960
and early 1961 Respondent; through its high management in the New Orleans and
Baton Rouge areas, committed widespread violations of the Act, including unlawful
threats, inducement of espionage, and interrogations.
Upon the entire record considered as a whole, I conclude that by the following
conduct by the following supervisors Respondent committed the following unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act:
1. By quoting Respondent's vice president and head of the New Orleans unit
of Respondent which includes the Baton Rouge stores to that effect, Sullivan threat-
ened employees that Respondent would close its stores before it would allow a union
to represent the employees in them.
2. Sullivan threatened employees with the loss of their employment because of
a union.
3. Hisaw threatened employees with the loss of their- employment if a union
struck.
4. Siragusa threatened an employee with loss of his job for talking to union rep-
resentatives and going to union meetings. -
5. By threatening to weed out everybody who was for is union, Smith threatened
economic reprisal against employees because of their union membership, sympathies,
and activities.
'6. In substance, Smith threatened that because of union activities reprisals had
been taken against the employees in one store, nand would be taken against the em-
ployees in all the stores. '
7. Lejeune threatened that if an employee went to a union meeting he might
get into trouble. As the only trouble suggested by the record was trouble with
Respondent, I hold on the entire record that this threat related to possible trouble
with Respondent if an employee went to a union meeting.
8. Hisaw, Shows, and Sullivan -requested or suggested to' employees that they
learn about and inform them concerning the union activities and sympathies of
other employees.
9. Hisaw requested or suggested that employees attend union meetings and report
to him concerning which of Respondent's employees attended the meetings and
what occurred at the meetings.
10. Smith outlined the type of information he wanted from a union meeting, and
after the meeting interrogated an employee as to all he had observed at the meeting,
including the identity of the employees who attended,.
11. Hisaw, Smith, Shows, Parsons, Sullivan, and Lejeune interrogated employees
concerning their and other employees' union knowledge, membership, activities, and
sympathies.
12. In substance, Parsons told an employee that if-her daughter was'not in favor
of a union Respondent would try to find her a job with Respondent.
13. Spencer and Smith promised benefits to employees iq,return for their helping
to keep a union out of Respondent's stores.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
The General Counsel contended that because of certain actions by Respondent
in ,this situation, the usual remedy of posting a notice is not sufficient. The General
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC . 467
Counsel requested a notice different in form from the customary notice, and that
it apply not only to the Baton Rouge stores but also to all of Respondent's stores'
in the New Orleans unit of Respondent which includes the Baton Rouge stores.'
The precise designation of this unit was not covered by the evidence in the record,
but the'record showed that this unit, herein referred to as the New Orleans unit,
was headed by a vice president of Respondent, who, at the time of the hearing was
a Mr. Nichols.
In substance, the General Counsel contended that Respondent, through a high
official, displayed to employees contempt for the Board's customary remedy; and
through a store manager disdain for the hearing procedure set up in the Act.
In late April 1961, after the issuance of the complaint herein, Grocery Assistant
Superintendent Smith made a talk to about 20 employees in one of its Baton
Rouge stores, during the course of which Smith said , "The Union has been making
a lot of noise about unfair labor practice charges against A & P. Let me set you
straight on that. Unfair labor practice charges are not serious. They claim that
we made a few statements that we should not have made. Even if we are found
to have made those statements the only thing we will have to do is post a notice
in the store saying that we will not make those statements any more." Before say-
ing the above Smith read the unfair labor practice charges filed against it. Later
in his talk Smith referred to the charges as "trumped up charges" which did not,
amount to a "hill of beans," and to the notice as a "little old letter." [Emphasis
supplied.]
Witness Robert Lartigue was subpenaed to appear and testify at the hearing on-
May 25, 1961. He did not work that day. That was his normal day off and he
did not inform his store manager, Hisaw, that he was subpenaed. About 1:40 p.m.-
on May 25, the day of the hearing herein, Lartigue went to the store and told Hisaw
that he might have to be off the next day to be in court. Hisaw said, "That is what
you get for fooling around and you will probably end up in jail . and I don't.
know what I'd do because probably half the store will end up in jail for talking to
the wrong people." Hisaw spoke these words rapidly, loudly, and with rising
intensity.
These incidents, particularly the former, together with the flagrant violations of
the Act disclosed in this record, are persuasive that the Board's usual remedy will
not suffice. Respondent has already scornfully belittled the Board's customary
notice as a "little old letter" and has told its employees that unfair labor practice
charges are not serious, that the charges in this matter were "trumped up charges,"
and that the only remedy would be to post one notice in one store saying it would
not make certain statements any more. Under these circumstances the usual notice
might not be understood by the employees as a bona fide commitment by Respondent
to refrain in the future from committing the same or additional unfair labor prac-
tices. Under the circumstances, action beyond the usual posting must be taken in
order to assure employees that unlawful threats, promises, and interrogations will
not recur and that other unfair labor practices will not occur.
As Respondent's Baton Rouge stores are managed and directed through Respond-
ent's vice president in charge of the New Orleans unit, and as this vice president was
quoted by a store manager to the effect that Respondent would close its stores rather
than deal with a union , I conclude that the notice provided for herein should be
signed by the vice president in charge of the New Orleans unit.
The meat superintendent, Parsons, and the grocery superintendent, Spencer, both
of whom were directly involved in the commission of the unfair labor practices found
herein, were from Respondent's New Orleans office, and in the management hier-
archy were clearly just under the vice president in responsibility and authority.
Next in line under' them were Meat Assistant Superintendent Shows and Grocery
Assistant Superintendent Smith, both of whom were also directly involved in the
commission of unfair labor practices, as seen above. It therefore appears that all of
the top management of the New Orleans unit was involved in the unfair labor prac-
tices, four of them directly. In these circumstances it is a fair conclusion that it was
company policy in the New Orleans unit of Respondent to violate the National Labor
Relations Act This being so, an appropriate remedy is that Respondent post the
notice provided for herein in each of its stores within the jurisdiction of the New
Orleans unit. This will tend to remedy the effects of the unfair labor practices shown
in the record to have been committed in the Baton Rouge stores and will tend to
remedy any unfair labor practices committed within any,other stores within the New
Orleans unit in pursuance of Respondent's policy in the New Orleans unit of violat-
ing the Act. As this policy exists, and as such a policy unless remedied in all of the
stores within the jurisdiction where the policy prevails will inevitably result in the
commission of unfair labor practices in other stores within the jurisdiction, the
protection of employee rights in all of the stores within the area of the prevalence
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of this unlawful policy will best be protected if the notice is now posted in all of the
stores within the unit.
In addition the General Counsel recommended that copies of the notice should
be mailed to all of the employees, supervisors, and officials of Respondent in the
New Orleans unit. Under all the circumstances, this recommendation is accepted as
to the Baton Rouge stores, where aggravated unfair labor practices have occurred at
several of the stores, but not accepted as to other stores within the jurisdiction of
the New Orleans unit because the number of these stores is not disclosed in the
record and sending notices to all of the individuals connected with all of.these
stores might prove to be a considerable burden upon Respondent.
In addition, the General Counsel recommended that Respondent assemble and
read the notice to all of its employees, supervisors, and officials within the New
Orleans unit. Under all the circumstances, this recommendation is accepted as to
the Baton Rouge stores but not as to the other stores.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company , Inc., is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 327,
AFL-CIO, and Retail Clerks International Association , Local No. 1691, AFL-CIO,
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. At various times in December 1960 and January and February 1961, and
thereafter , Respondent unlawfully threatened employees , interrogated employees,
made promises of benefit , and induced employees to spy upon and inform upon other
employees , thereby interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the rights
guaranteed in Section 7, Respondent thereby violating Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Associated Grocers of Port Arthur , Inc. and Local Union No.
393, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Cases Nos. 23-CA-
1096 and 93-RC-1516. November 20, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 16, 1961, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, and recommending further that the election
held on July 15, 1960, in Case No. 23-RC-15161 be set aside and a new
election held, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto 2
He further found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended
that the complaint be dismissed with respect thereto. Thereafter, the
1 Pursuant to the Board ' s Decision and Direction of Election Issued June 20. 1960
( not published in NLRB volumes).
2 On January 11, 1961, the Board Issued a Supplemental Decision and Direction per-
taining to challenges to certain ballots cast and to certain objections filed by the Union
herein to the conduct of the election. On January 24, 1961, the Board ordered Cases
Nos. 23-RC-1516 and 23-CA-1096 consolidated.
134 NLRB No. 47.