White Front Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1967

166 N.L.R.B. 175 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

WHITE FRONT STORES, INC. 175
White Front Stores , Inc. and Los Angeles Joint Ex-
ecutive Board of Hotel and Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders Unions , AFL-CIO' and Retail
Clerks Union , Local 7702 Party to the Contract.
Case 31-CA-315 (formerly 21-CA-6897)
June 28, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On March 20, 1967, Trial Examiner Wallace E.
Royster issued his Decision in the above-entitled
case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent, the Clerks,
and General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs; the
Joint Board filed cross-exceptions and a brief in
support thereof; the Respondent and Clerks filed
separate answering briefs to the General Counsel's
exceptions and brief; and Respondent filed an an-
swering brief to the Joint Board and cross-excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief
in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
ional 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 of the parties, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with
the following observations:
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act in
refusing to recognize and deal with the Joint Board
as the representative of the snackbar employees. It
is clear that from March 1, 1965, when the Re-
spondent took over the snackbar from Bab-Rand
and operated the snackbar itself as a part of its re-
tail department store, the snackbar continued to
provide the same products and services, at the same
location, and with the same work force doing the
same job under the same immediate supervision and
using the same equipment and methods. The duties
of these snackbar employees always have differed
from those of Respondent's other employees, and
only 3 months before transferring to Respondent's
payroll they had chosen the Joint Board as their
statutory bargaining agent in an election conducted
by this Agency. As the record thus clearly
establishes that the Respondent took over a cohe-
sive, identifiable group of employees who continued
to function as a separate group and who have been
separately represented by a Board-certified
representative, we find `that the Respondent was
obligated to bargain with such chosen representa-
tive and that its failure to do so was a violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. In these circumstances,
we find it unnecessary to consider, and do not pass
upon or adopt, the Trial Examiner's conclusion that
the Respondent is not engaged in the same employ-
ing industry as Bab-Rand.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respond-
ent, White Front Stores, Inc., Los Angeles,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order.
I Hereinafter also referred to as Joint Board.
Hereinafter also referred to as Clerks
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE E. RoYSTER, Trial Examiner: This matter
was tried in Los Angeles, California, on September 26
and 27, 1966. The complaint alleges that White Front
Stores, Inc., herein the Respondent, has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2),
(3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein
the Act, by entering into a collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, herein the
Clerks, covering Respondent's employees and containing
a union-shop clause at a time when Los Angeles Joint Ex-
ecutive Board of Hotel and Restuarant Employees and
Bartenders Unions, AFL-CIO, herein the Joint Board,
was the certified representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit.
The Respondent and the Clerks, in their respective an-
swers, admit that they entered into a bargaining relation-
ship in respect to the employees comprising the allegedly
appropriate bargaining unit but deny the conclusion that
unfair labor practices have been committed. All parties
have filed briefs.'
From my observation of the witnesses,-" in consider-
ation of the briefs filed, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
' The posthearing motion to correct the transcript is granted
z There is no substantial dispute on the facts . Credibility is not in-
volved.
166 NLRB No. 1 1
176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a California corporation operating
a number of discount department stores at various loca-
tions in the State of California. The Respondent has an
annual gross volume of sales exceeding $500,000 and an-
nually purchases and receives goods and products valued
at more than $50,000 from points located outside the
State of California. I find, as is conceded, that the
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in
a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Joint Board and the Clerks are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Only Respondent's store located on Jefferson Bou-
levard in Los Angeles is involved.
Effective July 1, 1962, the Respondent and the Clerks
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement for a
period of 5 years covering "all retail store employees and
office clerical employees whose work is related to the
operation of the retail stores (including, subject to the
provisions of section E hereof, employees of lessees,
licensees and concessionaires) employed in the retail
stores and offices of the employer located within the
present geographic jurisdiction of the Union," with usual
exclusions. The agreement provides further that should
the Respondent acquire an additional store or department
within the Clerks' geographic jurisdiction, the agreement
would be applied to the employees in this acquisition. In
November 1962, the Jefferson store opened. At about the
time of opening, Bab-Rand Company, herein called
Bab-Rand, was licensed by the Respondent to operate a
snackbar at the Jefferson store. In 1964, upon ap-
propriate petitions, the Board after hearing decided that
the snackbar workers at the Jefferson store constituted an
appropriate bargaining unit; that they were employed by
Bab-Rand alone and not by Bab-Rand and the Respond-
ent jointly, and directed an election.3 In November
1964, the Board certified the Joint Board as the exclusive
bargaining representative of Bab-Rand snackbar workers
at the Jefferson store.4 Thereafter, Bab-Rand and the
Joint Board executed a collective-bargaining agreement
covering these employees.
On February 28, 1965, Bab-Rand ceased its snackbar
operation in the Jefferson store and at other locations
where it had similar snackbars in Respondent's stores.
Effective March 1, all of the snackbar employees at the
Jefferson store were transferred to Respondent's payroll
and since have remained direct employees of Respond-
ent. On March 30, the Clerks wrote to the Respondent
suggesting a wage scale schedule for snackbar employees
at the Jefferson store. This was accepted and made effec-
tive as of March 1.
a 147 NLRB 247
4 The Board found the appropriate unit to consist of- "All snackbar
waiters and waitresses, cooks, and dishwashers . . excluding all other
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act "
5 This may reflect an afterthought on the part of the Respondent. Em-
ployee Annie Valliant testified that Sam Israel, the store manager, told her
On June 23 , the Respondent wrote to the Clerks in
connection with the snackbar employees , stating its belief
that such employees were properly within the coverage
of the 1962 contract but that union -security provisions
would not be made effective until there was an authorita-
tive determination as to the propriety of this action.5 The
Clerks accepted this understanding.
On June 14 , the Joint Board wrote the Respondent
renewing an earlier oral demand that it be recognized as
the lawful representative of the snackbar employees and
asking for a meeting. The Respondent refused to meet
with or deal with the Joint Board claiming that its obliga-
tion under its contract was to deal only with the Clerks in
all bargaining matters affecting the snackbar employees.
The snackbar employees have continued to work much
as they did before and with the same or similar equip-
ment . The snackbar supervisor , Levi Montgomery,
remains on his job but no longer has authority to hire or
discharge . This power is now exercised by Respondent's
store manager , or one of his assistants , and the snackbar
operation is now conducted by the Respondent as
another department in its store . One snackbar employee,
at his request , has been transferred to another depart-
ment. On some occasions some snackbar workers have
been required to do odd tasks not before given to them;
sweeping floors outside the snackbar area and bringing in
shopping carts from the parking lot. There is no dif-
ference in the character or extent of control exercised by
the Respondent over snackbar employees in comparison
with that over employees in other store departments.
When it decided in June 1964 that the snackbar em-
ployees constituted an appropriate bargaining unit, the
criteria relied upon by the Board were that they were em-
ployees of Bab-Rand and were the only Bab-Rand em-
ployees in the store . Once the finding of employment rela-
tionship was made and its reach defined , it followed that
the snackbar employees were entitled to choose a
representative to bargain with that employer . Their choice
of the Joint Board resulted in a certification which
Bab-Rand was obliged to honor, absent unusual circum-
stances, for at least a year . With the certification little
more than 3 months old , Bab-Rand left the scene and
Respondent became the employer. The central argument
supporting the complaint is that the Respondent is the
"successor" to Bab-Rand, that there was a continuation
of the "employing industry ," and that under well-settled
Board and court decisions the Respondent must accept
the unit determination and bargain with the Joint Board.
The Respondent and the Clerks cannot now relitigate
the 1964 representation case and have not attempted to
do so . They argue , however , that the Respondent is not
a "successor" to the business of Bab-Rand as that term
has been given meaning in Board decisions and that in
any event it cannot be demonstrated that the Respondent
is the same "employing industry " as Bab-Rand.
In August 1965, the Board had before it a representa-
tion case involving a question of successorship with the
Respondent as one of the parties. In its decisions the
Board found that an entity named Bristlo had been
licensed to operate liquor departments in seven of
in May that the snackbar employees were required tojoin the Clerks Ron
Mitton, another employee, testified that Valliant passed on this directive
to him. Both acted upon it Israel made no mention of this matter in his
testimony. I find that Valliant and Mittonjoined the Clerks in the belief
that to do so was a condition of employment.
6 Triumph Sales, Inc., 154 NLRB 916,918
WHITE FRONT STORES , INC. 177
Respondent's stores and had entered into collective-bar-
gaining contracts with the Clerks and with sister locals of
the Clerks covering employees in some if not all these de-
partments. Bristlo became bankrupt and another en-
trepreneur, Triumph, purchased merchandise, equipment
and State liquor licenses from Bristlo through the receiver
in bankruptcy and, after executing license agreements
with the Respondent, operated 11 liquor departments in
as many of its stores. Included in the 11 were the 7 earlier
operated by Bristlo. Bristlo had 7 employees but only 3
of these came over to Triumph and the latter hired 17 ad-
ditional workers. Triumph also added a line of gourmet
foods not previously handled by Bristlo. On the basis of
these factors the Board concluded that the "employing in-
dustry," Triumph, was not "essentially the same" and
that Triumph was not Bristlo's successor. The contracts
running between Bristlo and various locals of the Retail
Clerks, although unexpired, were held not to constitute
bars to elections.
Guided by this decision and considering that the
Respondent is in the business of operating discount de-
partment stores offering a wide range of merchandise to
the public in which snackbars play an inconsiderable part,
I conclude that the Respondent is not the same "employ-
ing industry" as Bab-Rand and thus is not a successor to
Bab-Rand.
This finding, however, is only a step on the journey to
disposition of this case. The Respondent, even though it
is not Bab-Rand's successor, may still have been obliged
to recognize the Joint Board and still faces the complaint
that it unlawfully extended recognition to and contracted
with the Clerks. The law does not frown upon the em-
ployer who accepts a union's claim that it is the bargain-
ing representative of his employees unless elements are
present to indicate that recognition represents the fruition
of the desires of the employer and the union rather than
that of the employees affected. One need not speculate
about the preferences of the Respondent and the Clerks.
Both contended even when Bab-Rand was the employer
that the snackbar employees came under the Clerks' con-
tract and, once Bab-Rand disappeared, the claim of the
Clerks to be the bargaining representative of the newly
acquired employees was quickly honored. I think there is
no greater reason to speculate about the desires of the
employees. They had voted in November 1964 for
representation by the Joint Board. There is nothing in the
record to indicate that by the following March they had
changed allegiance.
Perhaps the Respondent should have invoked the
Board's processes to resolve the matter. If it was then de-
cided that despite the change of employers the snackbar
employees still constituted an appropriate bargaining
unit, recognition of the Clerks would clearly have been
unlawful. No labor organization other than the Joint
Board could convincingly have claimed then to have been
the employees' choice. The Respondent argues, in sub-
stance, on this aspect of the case that this question can be
resolved as well in an unfair labor practice proceeding as
in a representation case. The fact that this can be and will
be done, does not, however, absolve the Respondent
from the consequences of its action.
Decision must turn, as I view it, on the question of
whether the snackbar employees still constituted an ap-
propriate bargaining unit after they were placed on
Respondent's payroll. The decision of the Board in the
representation case does not dispel doubt. The only
reason articulated there to support the unit determination
was that it included all of the employees of Bab-Rand at
the store. If other considerations had play they are not
mentioned. But other factors deserving of some weight
suggest themselves. The Respondent saw fit to arrange
for the operation of snackbars in its stores by licensees
and continued this arrangement until Bab-Rand was no
longer able to perform. Snackbars are distinct from other
departments in the store in that they provide a service
rather than merchandise. It seems probable that shoppers
patronize the snackbar because it is convenient to do so
during a shopping interlude and that its primary function
is to permit a hungry customer to satisfy his want while
keeping him in the store. One snackbar employee was
permanently transferred to another department but there
is no practice of interchange. Snackbar employees are
snackbar employees and that is where they work. Finally,
the Board has held, implicitly but in my view clearly, that
snackbar workers consitute an appropriate bargaining
unit even in the circumstances where they are carried on
the same payroll as other employees in a store. That is
one of the teachings of the Boy's Markets, Inc., 156
NLRB 105, enfd. 370 F.2d 205 (C.A. 9).
I conclude that the snackbar employees at the Jefferson
store continued on and after March 1, 1965, to constitute
a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
At no time before the Respondent entered into its
agreement with the Clerks bringing the snackbar em-
ployees under the coverage of the general contract had
any such employee designated the Clerks to represent
him. There is no evidence that the Clerks sought such an
expression from the employees. It was content to attain
bargaining status through the willingness of the Respond-
ent to accord it to them. The Joint Board alone has been
designated by the snackbar employees to bargain for
them. The Respondent must give effect to that designa-
tion.
I find that on March 1, 1965, the Joint Board was the
exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's
snackbar employees at the Jefferson store and that by
refusing at all times to recognize and bargain with that
representative, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act.
By extending recognition to and by entering into a con-
tract with the Clerks affecting the wages, hours, working
conditions, and other conditions of employment of
snackbar employees at the Jefferson store, the Respond-
ent has given assistance and support to the Clerks and
has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
By entering into a union-security agreement with the
Clerks which by its terms required snackbar employees
to obtain and maintain membership in the Clerks, the
Respondent has imposed an unlawful condition of em-
ployment and has thereby engaged in unfair' labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
By the commission of the unfair labor practices set
forth above, the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III, above, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and such of them as have been found to
constitute unfair labor practices tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the
Act.
As the Clerks are not and have not been the bargaining
representative of the snackbar employees, the recognition
extended to the Clerks must be withdrawn and the con-
tract with the Clerks no longer be given effect. To the ex-
tent that snackbar employees have by reason of recogni-
tion of the Clerks and because of the contract with the
Clerks been required to or have been told in circum-
stances inducing belief of a requirement to obtain mem-
bership in the Clerks or to pay any sums to the Clerks as
an actual or supposed condition of employment, the
Respondent must reimburse such individuals -by paying
to them all of such sums together with interest at the rate
of 6 percent per annum computed quarterly.7
Upon request, the Respondent must bargain with the
Joint Board as the exclusive representative of the
snackbar employees at the Jefferson store. The contract
between Bab-Rand and the Joint Board, upon notice, is
terminable on March 15, 1967, before this Decision will
be in the hands of the parties. Arguably, at least Re-
spondent in effect gave such notice of termination by
refusing to concede that it was bound to the Joint Board
by this contract. There seems now to be little point in
deciding whether the Respondent at all times since it
began the snackbar operation on March 1, 1965, was
required to give effect to the Joint Board contract. It then
became the employer of a group of employees who had a
bargaining representative. It could not lawfully change
the substantive conditions of their wages, hours, working
conditions, and other conditions of employment without
going through the bargaining process to agreement or im-
passe. As it refused to bargain,: it follows that any change
in such matters made in respect to the snackbar workers
must at the request of the Joint Board be rescinded and
that any monetary loss suffered by the employees on that
account be returned to them with interest at the rate of 6
percent per annum.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Joint Board and the Clerks are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. On March 1, 1965, and at all times since, the Joint
Board has been and is the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of all snackbar waiters and waitresses, cooks, and
dishwashers employed at the Jefferson store, excluding
all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act; a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. By refusing at all times since March 1, 1965, to
recognize the Joint Board as such bargaining representa-
tive and by refusing to bargain with the Joint Board in
respect to the wages, hours, working conditions, and
other conditions of employment of snackbar employees
at the Jefferson store, the Respondent has engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act.
5. By recognizing the Clerks as bargaining representa-
tive of the snackbar employees at the Jefferson store and
by entering into a contract with the Clerks affecting such
employees, the Respondent has contributed support and
assistance to the Clerks and has thus engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act.
6. By contracting with the Clerks to require member-
ship in the Clerks as a condition of employment, the
Respondent has discriminated in regard to tenure of em-
ployment to encourage membership in the Clerks and has
thus engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
7. By contributing support and assistance to the
Clerks, by refusing to bargain with the Joint Board, by
conditioning employment upon membership in the Clerks
(all with respect to the snackbar employees at the Jeffer-
son store), the Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case,
I recommend that White Front Stores, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Assisting or contributing support to the Clerks in
connection with the claim of that labor organization to
represent snackbar employees at the Jefferson store.
(b) Recognizing the Clerks as bargaining representa-
tive of snackbar employees at the Jefferson store or giv-
ing effect to any contract with that labor organization af-
fecting such employees.
(c) Refusing to bargain with the Joint Board as the ex-
clusive representative of the snackbar employees at the
Jefferson store.
(d) In any like or similar manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the Joint
Board or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent
7 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., Inc., 138 NLRB 716.
WHITE FRONT STORES, INC. 179
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold recognition from the
Clerks as bargaining representative of snackbar em-
ployees at the Jefferson store and cease giving effect to
any contract, agreement, or understanding with that labor
organization relating to those employees.
(b) Reimburse the Jefferson store snackbar employees
with interest for any sums paid by them to the Clerks
because of the actual or asserted existence of any con-
tractual arrangement between White Front Stores, Inc.,
and the Clerks.
(c) Make whole the snackbar employees at the Jeffer-
son store with interest for any financial benefit lost to
them by reason of any changes in wages, hours, working
conditions, or other conditions of employment made ef-
fective on or since March 1, 1965, from the date of any
such change to the date when such matters have been bar-
gained with the Joint Board to agreement or impasse.
(d) Post at its Jefferson store copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."8 Copies of this notice to be
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31, Los
Angeles, California, shall, after being signed by a
representative of the Respondent, be posted by it im-
mediately in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to snackbar employees are customarily
posted, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.9
8 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
9 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL SNACKBAR EMPLOYEES AT THE
JEFFERSON STORE
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL upon request bargain with Los Angeles
Joint Executive Board of Hotel and Restaurant Em-
ployees and Bartenders Unions, AFL-CIO, as your
exclusive bargaining representative and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody it in a signed agree-
ment.
WE HEREBY withdraw recognition from Retail
Clerks Union, Local 770 and will no longer give ef-
fect to any contract with that organization covering
you at this store.
WE WILL reimburse you with interest for sums any
of you have paid to the Retail Clerks on and since
March 1, 1965, because of an actual or supposed
requirement that you had to pay any money to that
labor organization in order to stay in our employ.
WE WILL make all of you whole for any financial
loss arising from your employment with us on and
since March 1, 1965, due to our failure to recognize
and bargain with Los Angeles Joint Executive Board
of Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
Unions, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT by imposing a bargaining represen-
tative upon you or by refusing to recognize the bar-
gaining representative of your choice, or in any like
or similar manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
you in the exercise of your right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through a representative of your
choosing and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual 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 member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment as permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WHITE FRONT STORES, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 215 West
Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California, Telephone
688-5850.