3232 Central Avenue, LLC d/b/a Central Market of Indiana, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 2018

366 NLRB No. 167 (N.L.R.B. 2018)

366 NLRB No. 167
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
3232 Central Ave, LLC d/b/a Central Market of Indi-
ana, Inc. and Local 881, United Food and Com-
mercial Workers. Cases 13–CA–172779, 13–
CA–173389, and 13–CA–194865
August 21, 2018
DECISION, ORDER, AND ORDER REMANDING
BY MEMBERS PEARCE, MCFERRAN, AND KAPLAN
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case on the ground that the Respondent, 3232 Central
Ave., LLC d/b/a Central Market of Indiana, Inc., failed to
file an answer to the complaint. Upon charges filed by
Local 881, United Food and Commercial Workers (the
Union) on March 29 and April 6, 2016,1 the General
Counsel issued an order consolidating cases, consolidat-
ed complaint and notice of hearing (the complaint, or
original complaint) on September 29, 2016, alleging that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act). On October 13,
2016, the Respondent, acting pro se, submitted a letter
contending that the complaint should be dismissed.
Thereafter, upon a new charge filed by the Union on
March 15, 2017, the General Counsel issued an order
postponing the hearing pending investigation of the new
charge and, on January 31, 2018, issued an amended sec-
ond consolidated complaint and notice of hearing (the
amended complaint). Copies of the charges and the
amended complaint were properly served on the Re-
spondent by regular and certified mail. The Respondent
did not file an answer to the amended complaint. On
February 15, 2018, the Region notified the Respondent
that it had failed to file an answer to the amended com-
plaint by the specified deadline, and unless the Respond-
ent filed an answer by February 22, 2018, a motion for
default judgment would be filed with the Board. The
Respondent did not, thereafter, file an answer to the
amended complaint.
On February 26, 2018, the General Counsel filed with
the National Labor Relations Board a Motion for Default
Judgment. On February 28, 2018, the Board issued an
order transferring proceeding to the Board and Notice to
Show Cause why the motion should not be granted. The
Respondent filed a late response to the Notice to Show

1 The charge in Case 13–CA–173389, filed April 6, 2016, was
amended June 15, 2016, and further amended August 30, 2016.
Cause, and subsequently filed a motion to allow its late-
filed response.2
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that a respondent “must specifically admit, de-
ny, or explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint,
unless the Respondent is without knowledge, in which
case the Respondent must so state, such statement oper-
ating as a denial.” It further provides that the allegations
in a complaint shall be deemed admitted if an answer is
not filed within 14 days from service of the complaint,
unless good cause is shown. The original, September 29,
2016 complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by ceasing to make contri-
butions to the Union’s health and welfare fund and pen-
sion fund, and by refusing to furnish the Union with cer-
tain requested information.
The Respondent, acting pro se, submitted a letter re-
sponding to the original complaint. The letter, received
by the Regional Office by the October 13, 2016 deadline
for filing an answer to the complaint, states that it is in
reference to the complaint and recounts the parties’ nego-
tiations after the Respondent acquired the Company. It
describes the Respondent’s implementation of its “best
and last offer” upon reaching impasse, explaining that
the implemented offer involved a $500 lump-sum pay-
ment and $100 monthly payments to employees for “ob-
taining their own health care coverage.” The letter also
denies failing to make pension contributions, and con-
cludes by stating that the Respondent has not violated the
Act and the complaint should be dismissed.
The subsequently issued January 31, 2018 amended
complaint includes the allegations from the original
complaint and adds allegations that the Respondent vio-

2 In its motion to allow the late-filed response, the pro se Respond-
ent contends that its filing was late because it had ceased operations and
had no funds at its disposal, and states that its “tardiness” was uninten-
tional. Such reasons are not typically considered good cause for a late
filing. See, e.g., Newark Symphony Hall, 323 NLRB 1297, 1297
(1997) (ignorance of the law does not constitute good cause for failing
to file a timely answer). Neither does the inability of a respondent to
pay for counsel constitute good cause. See Lockhart Concrete, 336
NLRB 956, 956–957 (2001). It is also no defense that a respondent has
ceased operations. See Dong-a Daily North America, 332 NLRB 15,
15–16 (2000) (neither cessations of operations nor bankruptcy proceed-
ings constitute good cause for failure to file timely answer). Finally,
the Respondent cannot, as it substantively seeks to do here, file an
untimely answer in response to a notice to show cause, where good
cause has not been shown for the delay. See Lockhart Concrete, supra,
at 957; Perry Bros. Trucking, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 10, slip op. at 1
(2016). Accordingly, we find that the response to the Notice to Show
Cause does not warrant consideration.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
lated the Act by reducing the hours of bargaining unit
members on two separate occasions, prohibiting bargain-
ing unit members from taking vacation days, making
$100 payments directly to union members in lieu of mak-
ing contributions to the health and welfare fund, and uni-
laterally laying off and/or constructively discharging all
union members in the bargaining unit. The amended
complaint advised the Respondent that unless an answer
was received by February 14, 2018,3 the Board may find,
pursuant to a motion for default judgment, that the alle-
gations in the amended complaint are true.
The Respondent filed no response to the amended
complaint, and the General Counsel filed a Motion for
Default Judgment. The motion references the amended
complaint and the Respondent’s failure to file an answer
to the amended complaint, but does not reference the
original complaint or the Respondent’s October 13, 2016
letter.
At the outset, we recognize that the Respondent does
not have legal representation in this proceeding. In de-
termining whether to grant a motion for default judgment
on the basis of a respondent’s failure to file a sufficient
or timely answer, the Board typically shows “some leni-
ency toward respondents who proceed without benefit of
counsel.” Clearwater Sprinkler System, 340 NLRB 435,
435 (2003). In fact, “the Board will generally not pre-
clude a determination on the merits of a complaint if it
finds that a pro se respondent has filed a timely answer,
which can reasonably be construed as denying the sub-
stance of the complaint allegations.” Id., citing Har-
borview Electric Construction Co., 315 NLRB 301
(1994).
The October 13, 2016 letter constitutes an attempt by
the pro se Respondent to duly file an answer to the origi-
nal complaint. It was submitted prior to the deadline for
filing an answer, and the first line of the letter states that
it is “[i]n reference to the above cited complaint.” It
thereafter recounts the circumstances the Respondent
believes are relevant to the complaint allegations, and
concludes with a statement that the complaint should be
dismissed. To the extent the letter fails to comply with
all of the procedural rules for filing an answer, such fail-
ure does not preclude its consideration as an answer to
the complaint, because it was submitted without the ben-
efit of counsel.4

3 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereafter refer to 2018.
4 See, e.g., Prompt Medical Transportation, Inc. d/b/a Prompt Am-
bulance Service, 366 NLRB No. 50, slip op. at 3 (2018) (“[B]ecause the
Respondent’s letter was filed without benefit of counsel, we will not
preclude a hearing on the merits simply because of the Respondent’s
failure to comply with all our procedural rules.”).
Having found that the Respondent’s October 13, 2016
letter constitutes a timely filed answer to the complaint,
we now consider the letter’s impact on the motion for
default judgment. It is well established that “[t]he Board
will not grant default judgment on an allegation respond-
ed to in a timely-filed answer to a complaint even though
the respondent later fails to timely answer an amended
complaint repeating that allegation, provided that the
repeated allegation is ‘substantively unchanged’ from the
original.” RFS Ecusta, Inc., 342 NLRB 920, 920–921
(2004).
Here, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Respondent unlawfully ceased making contributions
to the Union’s health and welfare and pension funds.
These allegations are repeated in the amended complaint,
at subparagraphs IX(a) and (b). The Respondent’s letter
denies that it unlawfully ceased making contributions to
the health and welfare fund, as it states that it negotiated
with the Union to impasse, that it then notified the Union
that it was implementing its “best and last offer,” and
that said offer included a $500 lump-sum payment and
an additional $100 per month payment towards each em-
ployee’s healthcare costs. The letter also denies that the
Respondent had ceased making contributions to the pen-
sion fund. We find that these statements sufficiently
deny the original complaint’s allegations concerning the
cessation of contributions to the health and welfare and
pension funds, and therefore default judgment is not war-
ranted as to these allegations in the amended complaint.
Additionally, we find that default judgment is not war-
ranted as to the amended complaint’s subparagraph
IX(d), alleging that between about November 2016 and
January 2017, in lieu of making contributions to the
health and welfare fund, the Respondent made $100
payments directly to union members in the bargaining
unit. Although this allegation was not specifically in-
cluded in the original complaint, we find the Respond-
ent’s October 13, 2017 letter essentially denies this alle-
gation with its explanation that the payments were made
as part of the implementation of its final offer.5 Because
the Respondent’s letter includes an adequate denial of
this allegation, we shall deny default judgment as to sub-
paragraph IX(d) of the amended complaint.
The Respondent’s letter does not, however, address the
remaining allegations of unlawful conduct in the original
complaint and the amended complaint. These consist of

5 Although subpar. IX(d) alleges that the Respondent made $100
payments between November 2016 and January 2017, i.e., a period
after the Respondent’s October 13, 2016 letter, the Respondent’s letter
explained that the implementation of its final offer included a continu-
ing $100 monthly payment to employees to help them with their
monthly health care costs.
3232 CENTRAL AVE, LLC D/B/A CENTRAL MARKET OF INDIANA, INC. 3
the allegations in paragraph VI of the original complaint,
repeated in paragraph VIII of the amended complaint,
that it failed and refused to furnish the Union with certain
requested information, and allegations in paragraph VII
and subparagraph IX(c) of the amended complaint that it
reduced the hours of bargaining unit members, unilateral-
ly laid off and/or constructively discharged all union
members in the bargaining unit, and prohibited bargain-
ing unit members from taking vacation days. In the ab-
sence of any answer to these allegations, we find that
default judgment is warranted as to them.
Accordingly, because the Respondent filed an answer
to the original complaint denying the allegations ulti-
mately alleged in subparagraphs IX(a), (b), and (d) of the
amended complaint, we shall deny the General Counsel’s
Motion for Default Judgment as to these allegations and
we shall sever and remand them to the Region for further
appropriate action. However, in the absence of good
cause being shown for the lack of a timely answer to all
other allegations in the amended complaint, we shall
grant default judgment as to these allegations.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation
with an office and place of business located in Lake Sta-
tion, Indiana, has been engaged in the retail sale of food
and related products.
During the 12-month period ending January 31, 2018,
a representative period, the Respondent, in conducting its
business operations described above, derived gross reve-
nues in excess of $500,000, and purchased and received
at its Lake Station, Indiana facility products, goods, and
materials valued in excess of $5000 directly from points
outside the State of Indiana.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their respective names
and have been supervisors of the Respondent within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:
Zafar Sheikh -- Manager
Bashir Chaudry -- Manager
Bushra Naseer -- Owner
Sean Sheikh -- Owner
The following employees of the Respondent (the unit)
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All employees working in the above retail store of the
Company who are actively engaged in handling or sell-
ing of merchandise, excluding those employees in the
Meat Department, Deli Department, Seafood Depart-
ment, Maintenance Employees, one (1) Store Manager,
one (1) Produce Manager, three (3) Assistant Manag-
ers, one (1) Grocery Manager and Pharmacists.
From about February 12, 2013, until about May 15,
2015, the Union had been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employed by the
Central Market, and during that time the Union had been
recognized as such representative by Central Market.
This recognition was embodied in successive collective-
bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is effec-
tive from February 12, 2013, to February 8, 2016.
Since about May 15, 2015, based on the facts above,
the Union has been the designated exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit.
At all times since May 15, 2015, based on Section 9(a)
of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit.
1. Starting about mid-August of 2016, and continuing
through March 2017, the Respondent unilaterally re-
duced the work hours of union members in the bargain-
ing unit described above by removing them from the
Sunday work schedule.
2. Starting about early October of 2016 and continu-
ing through about March 2017, the Respondent unilater-
ally further reduced the work hours of union members in
the bargaining unit described above.
3. Between about December 2016 and about March
2017, the Respondent unilaterally laid off and/or con-
structively discharged all union members in the bargain-
ing unit described above.
4. The conduct described above in paragraphs 1
through 3 is inherently destructive of the rights guaran-
teed employees by Section 7 of the Act.
5. The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above in paragraphs 1 through 3, because the employees
supported and assisted the Union and in order to discour-
age its employees from engaging in these activities.
6. Since about November 15, 2015, the Union has re-
quested in writing that the Respondent furnish the Union
with the following information:
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
(a) Average weekly number of employees and hours
worked by job classification and wage rate, specifying
the number of employees working in each classification
and their classification wage rate;
(b) Total straight-time hours worked;
(c) Overtime hours and total premium expense;
(d) Paid sick time hours and total expense;
(e) Funeral leave hours paid and total expense;
(f) Jury Duty total hours paid and total expense;
(g) Holiday hours worked and total premium expense
separately for all employees;
(h) Holiday hours (paid but not worked), separately for
all employees;
(i) Total vacation hours and vacation pay plus the
number of employees with 1, 2, 3, etc. weeks of vaca-
tion for all employees;
(j) Any other bonuses or premiums paid to employees.
7. The information requested by the Union, as de-
scribed above in paragraph 6, is necessary for, and rele-
vant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
8. Since about February 8, 2016, the Respondent has
failed and refused to furnish the Union with the infor-
mation requested by it as described above in paragraph 6.
9. About October 19, 2016, the Respondent unilateral-
ly instituted a policy which prohibited employees in the
bargaining unit described above from taking vacation
days.
10. The subject set forth above in paragraph 9 relates
to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment of the unit and is a mandatory subject for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
11. Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above in paragraph 9 without prior notice to the Union
and without affording the Union an opportunity to bar-
gain with Respondent with respect to this conduct and
the effects of this conduct.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 1
through 5 and 9, the Respondent has been discriminating
in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of
employment of its employees, thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 1
through 11, the Respondent has been failing and refusing
to bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative for its employ-
ees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
3. The Respondent’s unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, it is ordered to cease and de-
sist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the Act.
Specifically, having found that the Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the Act by reducing the
hours of its union-member unit employees and instituting
a policy prohibiting unit employees from taking vacation
days, we shall order the Respondent to rescind the reduc-
tions of work hours and the prohibition of taking vaca-
tion days. The Respondent shall also be required to
make whole its unit employees for any loss of wages or
other benefits suffered as a result of this unlawful con-
duct in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service,
183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir.
1971), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed
in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
Additionally, having found that the Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the Act by laying off
and/or constructively discharging unit employees, we
shall order the Respondent to offer them full reinstate-
ment to their former jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed. In addition, we shall order the Respondent to
make employees whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F.
W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at
the rate prescribed in New Horizons, supra, compounded
daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center,
supra. In accordance with King Soopers, Inc., 364
NLRB No. 93 (2016), the Respondent shall compensate
them for their search-for-work and interim employment
expenses, if any, regardless of whether those expenses
exceed interim earnings. Search-for-work and interim
employment expenses shall be calculated separately from
taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate prescribed
in New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as prescribed
in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra. We shall also
order the Respondent to compensate affected employees
for the adverse tax consequences, if any, associated with
receiving lump-sum backpay awards and to file with the
Regional Director for Region 13 a report allocating the
backpay award to the appropriate calendar year. Ad-
voServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016).
We shall also order the Respondent to remove from its
3232 CENTRAL AVE, LLC D/B/A CENTRAL MARKET OF INDIANA, INC. 5
files any references to their unlawful discharges and re-
ductions of hours, and within 3 days thereafter to notify
them in writing that this has been done and that their
unlawful discharges and reductions of hours will not be
used against them in any way.
Finally, having found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to furnish
the Union with necessary and relevant information re-
quested since about November 15, 2015, we shall order
the Respondents to provide the Union with the requested
information that is necessary for and relevant to its role
as the limited collective-bargaining representative of the
unit.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, 3232 Central Avenue, LLC d/b/a Central
Market of Indiana, Inc., Lake Station, Indiana, its offic-
ers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Reducing the work hours of unit employees be-
cause they support and assist the Union, Local 881, Unit-
ed Food and Commercial Workers, and to discourage
employees from engaging in these activities.
(b) Prohibiting employees in the bargaining unit from
taking vacation days because they support and assist the
Union, and to discourage employees from engaging in
these activities.
(c) Laying off, constructively discharging or otherwise
discriminating against employees for supporting the Un-
ion or any other labor organization.
(d) Unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of
employment of its unit employees.
(e) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by
failing and refusing to furnish it with requested infor-
mation that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s per-
formance of its functions as the collective-bargaining
representative of the Respondent’s unit employees.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the reductions of work hours for unit em-
ployees that were unilaterally implemented about August
2016 and October 2016.
(b) Rescind the policy prohibiting unit employees from
taking vacation days that was unilaterally implemented
about October 19, 2016.
(c) Before implementing any changes in wages, hours,
or other terms and conditions of employment of unit em-
ployees, notify and, on request, bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
employees in the following bargaining unit:
All employees working in the above retail store of the
Company who are actively engaged in handling or sell-
ing of merchandise, excluding those employees in the
Meat Department, Deli Department, Seafood Depart-
ment, Maintenance Employees, one (1) Store Manager,
one (1) Produce Manager, three (3) Assistant Manag-
ers, one (1) Grocery Manager and Pharmacists.
(d) Make its unit employees whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
unlawful reductions of work hours and policy prohibiting
unit employees from taking vacation days, in the manner
set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer its
unit employees who were laid off and/or constructively
discharged between December 2016 and March 2017 full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or priv-
ileges previously enjoyed.
(f) Make unit employees laid off or constructively dis-
charged between December 2016 and March 2017 whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them, in the manner
set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(g) Compensate the affected employees for the adverse
tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region
13, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allo-
cating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar
years for each employee.
(h) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful reductions of
hours, layoff and constructive discharges, and within 3
days thereafter, notify the employees in writing that this
has been done and that the reductions of hours and dis-
charges will not be used against them in any way.
(i) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by the Union on about November 15,
2015.
(j) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
(k) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Lake Station, Indiana facility copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent custom-
arily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since about February 8, 2016.
(l) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 13 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the General Counsel's
Motion for Default Judgment is denied as to subpara-
graphs IX(a), (b), and (d) of the amended complaint, and
those allegations are remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 13 for further appropriate action.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 21, 2018
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT reduce your hours because you support
and assist the Union, Local 881, United Food and Com-
mercial Workers, and to discourage you from engaging
in these activities.
WE WILL NOT prohibit you from taking vacation days
because you support and assist the Union, and to dis-
courage you from engaging in these activities.
WE WILL NOT change your terms and conditions of
employment without first notifying the Union and giving
it an opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any of you for supporting the Union or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
Union by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested
information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s
performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining
representative of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL rescind the reductions of hours of our unit
employees that were unilaterally implemented about Au-
gust 2016 and October 2016.
WE WILL rescind the policy prohibiting unit employees
from taking vacation days.
WE WILL, before implementing any changes in wages,
hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of
unit employees, notify and, on request, bargain with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of our employees in the following bargaining unit:
All employees working in the above retail store of the
Company who are actively engaged in handling or sell-
ing of merchandise, excluding those employees in the
3232 CENTRAL AVE, LLC D/B/A CENTRAL MARKET OF INDIANA, INC. 7
Meat Department, Deli Department, Seafood Depart-
ment, Maintenance Employees, one (1) Store Manager,
one (1) Produce Manager, three (3) Assistant Manag-
ers, one (1) Grocery Manager and Pharmacists.
WE WILL make unit employees whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of our
unlawful unilateral reductions of their hours and prohibi-
tion against taking vacation days, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer our unit employees who were laid off
and/or constructively discharged between December
2016 and March 2017 full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exists, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make unit employees who were laid off
and/or constructively discharged between December
2016 and March 2017 whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from their unlawful layoffs
and/or discharges, less any net interim earnings, plus
interest, and WE WILL also make such employees whole
for reasonable search-for-work and interim employment
expenses, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate affected employees for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 13, within 21 days of the date the
amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay awards to
the appropriate calendar years for each employee.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful reductions of hours and discharges of unit employees,
and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify each of
them in writing that this has been done and that the dis-
charges will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested by the Union on about November
15, 2015.
3232 CENTRAL AVE, LLC D/B/A CENTRAL
MARKET OF INDIANA, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/13-CA-172779 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273-1940.