Central Markets

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 503 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

CENTRAL MARKETS 503
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood
of Bookbinders , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of our
employees in the following appropriate unit:
All the employees in the bindery and shipping and receiving depart-
ment at our Evansville , Indiana, plant ; excluding office clerical and pro-
fessional employees , guards and supervisors as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act and all other employees.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Local 73L, Lithogra-
phers and Photoengravers International Union , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of our employees in the following appropriate unit:
All lithographic production employees at our Evansville , Indiana,
plant , including offset press operators , platemakers , strippers, camera-
men, pasteup, layout , and art employees ; excluding compositors , letter
pressmen , proofreaders , office clerical , and professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act
and all other employees.
WE WILL, upon request , bargain , collectively with the aforesaid labor
organizations and, if an understanding is reached , with either organization,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
KRIEGER-RAGSDALE AND COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, 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, 614
ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street , Indianapolis , Indiana 46204 , Telephone
633-8921.
The Golub Corporation , Mechanicville Central , Inc. d/b/a Central
Markets and Amalgamated Meat Cutters , Butcher Workmen
and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1,
AFL-CIO. Case 3-CA-12565. Juirte 16,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 15, 1966, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert issued his
Decision 'in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that. Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it-cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action,' as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
'The Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to pass on the question'of the validity of the
union authorization card of employee Louis Paluso as raised by the Respondent in its
brief to the Trial Examiner . The Respondent in its exceptions again questions the validity
of such card . On the basis of the record herein , we find the union authorization card of
Louis Paluso to be valid. We need not pass upon the validity of any of the other cards
held by the Union and not counted by the Trial Examiner
159 NLRB No. 48.
504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Decision. He further found that Respondent had not engaged in
certain unfair labor practices and recommended that these allega-
tions be dismissed .2 Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
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 the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
2The Trial Examiner dismissed an allegation that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act by paying for time spent by employees at a dinner meeting where the Board
election, to be held the next day, was discussed. The Trial Examiner's dismissal of such
allegation was based upon the conclusion that the General Counsel failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that such payment was not the customary practice of the
Respondent in similar situations . We note, in a companion proceeding involving the same
Respondent at stores located in other areas, the Board adopted the finding of the Trial
Examiner that such was the customary practice of the Respondent, 159 NLRB 355.
8 No briefs were filed in support of such exceptions.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on March 2, 1965 , and amended on April 9 , 1965, by
Amalgamated Meat Cutters , Butcher Workmen and Store Clerks of North
America, District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the
Union, the complaint in Case 3-CA-2567 was issued on April 21, 1965. Upon
a charge filed by the Union on May 10, 1965, the compalint in Case 3-CA-2654
was issued on June 7, 1965. By order of the Regional Director for Region 3,
dated June 8, 1965 , the above two cases were consolidated .' The complaint in
Case 3-CA-2567 alleged that The Golub Corporation and Central Markets Oper-
ating Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Company or the Respondents, vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act . In answer thereto, Respondents denied
the alleged unfair labor practices . The complaint in Case 3-CA-2654 alleged
that Respondents violated Section 8 (a)(5) and (1 ) of the Act , which allegations
the Respondents denied in their answer thereto . As will be more fully explained
hereinbelow, The Golub Corporation operates a chain of stores and the instant
cases involve different stores in said chain .2
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Albany, New York, in the instant cases
on July 13 and 14, 1965 ,3 before Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert. All parties to
'A third case was included in said consolidation order , The Golub Corporation, Me-
chanicville Central , Inc. d/b/a Central Markets and Amalgamated Meat Cutters. Butcher
Workmen and Store Clerks of North America , District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO,
Case 3-CA-2565 . Shortly after the commencement of the bearing on the three cases, the
latter case was severed from the instant cases . upon motion of Respondents , over the ob-
jections of General Counsel and the Charging Party.
2 The case which was severed from the instant cases involved a third store in said chain.
8 After the severance of the third case on July 13, the hearing proceeded in the instant
cases on said dates . At the end of the day of July 14 , 1965, the instant cases were closed
for the receipt of evidence . However , the said cases were not formally closed until July 16
at the conclusion of the hearing of the above -mentioned third case ( which was heard on
July 15 and 16).
CENTRAL MARKETS 505
the proceedings appeared and were given full opportunity to offer relevant and
competent evidence. Briefs were received from General Counsel and Respond-
ents within the time designated therefor.
Upon the entire record in this consolidated proceeding and my observation of
the witnesses as they testified, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
The Golub Corporation and Central Markets Operating Co., Inc., its "'entirely
owned and controlled subsidiary," admittedly have common ownership, officers,
supervision, and labor policies. The "Golub Corporation operates a chain of 25
retail food stores through subsidiary corporations including the above-named sub-
sidiay corporation :- The Golub Corporation maintains its principal offices, ware-
house, and place of business in Schenectady, New York,' and through its above-
named subsidiary, operates a store in Glens-Falls, New York, the store involved
in Case 3-CA-2567, and a store in North Troy, New York, the store involved
in Case 3-CA-2654.- The Respondent corporations are engaged at said locations
in the sale and distribution of groceries, produce, and related products. During
the year preceding the issuance of the complaints involved herein, Respondents
in the course and conduct of their business operations sold and distributed prod-
ucts of a gross value in excess of $500 ,000, and during the same period of time
received goods valued in excess of $50,000, transported to their places of busi-
ness in the, State of New York directly from States other than the State of
New York.
As is admitted by Respondents, they are, and have been at all times material
herein, "individually and collectively" an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of-the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
As is admitted by Respondents, Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Butcher Workmen
and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
For purposes of clarity and convenience the instant cases will be considered
separately hereinbelow.
A. Case 3-CA-2567 (the Glens Falls Store)
Chronology of Undisputed Facts
The following facts are disclosed in the record and are undisputed:
At the end of November 1964, Henry Ebert, an employee,4 contacted a repre-
sentative of the Union.
On December 1, 1964, apparently as a result of said contact, a union repre-
sentative met Henry Ebert in the parking lot at the store, and they had lunch in
a nearby restaurant.
From December 1 to February 1, Henry Ebert asked approximately 12 fellow
employees to sign union authorization cards and received from them 12 signed
cards.
On December 12 and 15, 1964, Respondents held meetings of employees 5 at
which William Golub, an owner and officer of the Respondents, delivered speeches
which were substantially the same. It appears, for the most part, employees who
did not attend the first meeting were present at the second meeting. The employ-
ees were paid for their time spent at said meetings.
On or about December 17, 1964, Respondents gave employees their annual
Christmas bonuses, apparently an amount of money equivalent to 1 week's wages.
On December 18, a letter addressed to employees from Golub was posted in
A All references to employee or employees in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision
dealing with Case 3-CA-2567 are to employees of the store involved in this case (the
Glens Falls store) unless otherwise indicated.
5 It appears that employees from some of the other stores in the chain were also present.
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all of the stores in the chain including the one involved herein . The letter
referred to the status of, the representation proceeding related to the other case
in this proceeding, that is, Case 3-CA-2654.
Effective as of the beginning of January 1965 , the employees in all of the 25
stores in the chain received a wage increase.6
On February 26, 1965, Ebert was discharged.
The Issues
The following issues are raised by the pleadings herein:
1. Whether Roger Hoyt , a district manager of Respondents , unlawfully inter-
rogated Ebert on or about December 4 and 18.
2. Whether or not Hoyt unlawfully threatened Ebert and another employee,
Keith Jackson , with future loss of their Christmas bonuses at the time they
received their bonuses on or about December 17, 1964.
3. Whether Hoyt, by a statement made to Ebert in the early part of 1965,
created the impression of surveillance of the concerted activities of employees.
4. Whether the aforementioned letter which was posted on or about Decem-
ber 18 created the impression that Respondents were engaged in surveillance of
employees' concerted activities.
5. Whether by the payment to employees for their time spent at the meetings
on December 12 and 15 Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. Whether by the general wage increase granted to the employees -at the begin-
ning of January 1965 Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. Whether by his speeches given at the meetings of December 12 and 15
Golub unlawfully threatened employees.
8. Whether the discharge of Ebert on February 26 was discriminatorily
motivated.
Although the complaint alleges that on or about December 11, 1964, John
Cross, the store manager , unlawfully promised and granted employees economic
benefits, there appears to be nothing in the record to support this allegation and
General Counsel makes no reference in his brief . with respect thereto . There-
fore , this allegation will not be considered hereinbelow and it will be recom-
mended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it relates thereto.
1. The alleged unlawful interrogation
Ebert testified that on December 4, 1964, Hoyt invited him over to the snack-
bar in the store for a cup of coffee at which time they held a conversation.
Ebert's testimony with respect to the relevant portion thereof is as follows:
Mr. Hoyt asked me what I knew about the Union in the Glens Falls area.
I had told him that I had signed the card, that I had a button, and I was
glad to wear it-a Local #1 button.
TRIAL EXAMINER: You told him you had signed the card?
The WITNESS: Yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER: And what else?
The WITNESS- And that I had a button and would be glad to wear it.
Q. (By Mr. STANTON.) Then, what happened?
A. He told me that we didn't need the Union in there and asked me what
my grievances were.
Q. What did you say?
A. I told him money, money, and money. Then he said, "Then your
trouble would all be solved by money?" and I said, "About 95 percent of
it." He said was there anything else. I said we needed a better vacation
pay, better hospitalization, and more job security. Then Mr. Hoyt replied
that the best job security was to do a good job for the company.
When Hoyt was called as a witness by Respondents, he was asked by Respondents'
counsel if he remembered having a conversation with Ebert in which he asked him,
"What do you know about the Union?" to which Hoyt responded that he did not
remember any such conversation. When Respondents' counsel then referred to
'It appears that the wage increases were not made immediately effective in two stores
which were involved in representation proceedings.
CENTRAL MARKETS 507
Ebert's testimony that during the course of the conversation, he told Hoyt that he
had signed a card and had a button and would be glad to wear it, Hoyt testified
as follows:
Well, I think I recall the incident that took place. As I recall, I called Henry
Ebert out to have a cup of coffee with me, as I do most all of my employees
at one time or another, and at that time, we sat down at the snack bar door
and I asked him if he had any problems, and he said "I certainly do," and he
said, "money, money, money," he said, "that's why I'm sporting this union
button."
Q. Did he have a union button on him at that time?
A. Yes sir.
The only substantial differences in their testimony are whether or not the conversa-
tion was commenced by Holt questioning Ebert as to what he knew about the
Union and whether or not Ebert was wearing a union button. While Hoyt testified
Ebert was wearing a union button, Ebert's testimony is not clear on this point.
From his statement'in the first part of his testimony, "I was glad to wear it," it
would appear that he was wearing the button. Immediately thereafter when
requested to repeat his testimony he changed the tense of the verb and testified that
he said he "would be glad to wear it," which would appear to indicate that he was
not wearing the button.
Ebert testified to a subsequent conversation with Hoyt on or about December 18
or 19 as follows:
Mr. Hoyt asked me when we were going to have an election in the Glens Falls
area, or didn't we have enough cards. I told him I had signed the card, and
I felt sure when the Union petitioned for an election, that they would notify
somebody, either in the Glens Falls area or at the office in Schenectady. He
then asked me what I thought of the election in North Troy. I told him that
it went as anticipated, and I was led to believe that the. Company expected it,
also. He said they weren't, and then he walked away:
When Hoyt was questioned as to whether he had such a conversation with Ebert,
he responded, "I don't believe so. I don't remember saying that of all."
All of the allegations of unfair labor practices involving individual employees,
except for one incident with respect to which employee Jackson testified, involved
Ebert. Most of the credibility problems raised in the hearing in, this case are
whether Ebert's testimony or the testimony of several of Respondents' witnesses,
which contradicts Ebert's in part, should be credited. From observation-of Ebert
and said Respondents' witnesses on the stand and a careful study of their testi-
mony, it is my conclusion that that portion of Ebert's testimony which is con-
tradicted cannot be credited? Hoyt appeared to be a candid witness. For exam-
ple, his testimony clearly established that Respondents had knowledge of Ebert's
strong prounion sentiment: Hoyt not only testified that Ebert wore a union button
but also that, when he asked Ebert if he had heard of the result of an election at
another store which the Union had lost by a substantial vote, Ebert replied. "That
was one for us [referring to an election in another store which the Union had won]
and one for you." Therefore, I credit Hoyt's testimony as to the conversation on
December 4 and that Ebert was wearing a union button at the time,8 and I
credit Hoyt's denial of Ebert's testimony relating to a conversation on December 17
or 18. There is no evidence that Respondents engaged in interrogation of any
other employees. It is concluded that in all the circumstances of this case 9 Hoyt's
interrogation of Ebert on December 4 (apparently as to why he wanted the Union)
did not constitute interference, restraint, and coercion within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) of the Act. It is also concluded that General Counsel has not proved
by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondents engaged in unlawful interro-
gation as alleged in paragraph 8(a) of the complaint.
7 Further reasons for this conclusion will be indicated hereinbelow in consideration of
the issue of whether Ebert's discharge was discriminatorily motivated
s Ebert testified that he did wear the union button in the store on another occasion,
which testimony was not contradicted and is credited
6 That Hoyt was aware of Ebert' s prounion attitude by his wearing of the union button,
and, therefore, had no need to ascertain Ebert's attitude toward the Union ; that the
interrogation was an isolated incident; and the finding hereinbelow that Ebert's discharge
was not discriminatorily motivated
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Alleged threats by Hoyt
Ebert testified that when he was given his Christmas bonus on December 17 or
18 by Hoyt, Hoyt told him that if he "had any more visitors, this could be the
last one-bonus." Jackson testified that, when Hoyt handed him his bonus, Hoyt
stated "that if the Union came in, that possibly that would be the last Christmas
bonus we would receive." Hoyt, when questioned about this testimony of Ebert
and Jackson, denied that he made any such statements. Hoyt further testified as
follows:
Yes sir, when I pass out the Christmas bonus it's customary to say "Merry
Christmas," or "Happy New Year," and at that time, in fact, I said to all
employees, I said "I hope we get many more of these," or I said "I hope this
isn't the last one," meaning that I hoped there would be many more.
There is nothing in the record which would shed any light on what the refer-
ence (in Ebert's testimony) to "visitors" means.10 In any event, for reasons
indicated above, Hoyt's denial of Ebert's testimony is credited.
Jackson .was an employee of Respondents at the time bonuses were distributed
but had been discharged sometime prior to the hearing. There is no showing that
Respondents had any knowledge of Jackson's attitude toward the Union and there
is no contention that his discharge was discriminatorily motivated. Further, there
is no indication of why Hoyt might have singled out Jackson as the person to whom
to voice such a threat, there being no evidence that such a statement was made to
any other employee. Jackson was not as impressive a witness as Hoyt appeared
to be, and, therefore, Hoyt' s denial of Jackson's testimony is credited.
Thus, it is concluded that the General Counsel has failed to prove by a prepon-
derance of the evidence the allegation in paragraph 8(c) of the complaint that
Hoyt threatened employees with economic reprisals.
3. The alleged, impression of surveillance
Ebert testified that, in the first part of February, Hoyt made a statement to him
which General Counsel contends created the impression of surveillance. Ebert's
testimony is as follows:
Mr. Hoyt announced that there was a big Union meeting the night before, I
believe, and that only six attended. I didn't know anything about it, so I
didn't say anything.
Q. Did he mention where the Union meeting was held?
A. In Mechanicville.
Hoyt denied this testimony. For the reasons stated hereinabove, Hoyt's denial is
credited.
On or about December 18, Respondents posted a letter to employees in all of
its stores including the one involved in this case. The pertinent portions of the
letter are as follows:
On Wednesday, December 16th, a Union election of 17 people was held in our
North Troy store. The Union received 3 more votes than the company
(10-7). The results of the election are NOT yet final, pending further pro-
ceedings before the NLRB. We are in the process of filing objections to the
conduct of the election and we must await their final decision.
Of the people who voted, 4 or 5 were new or part time employees who, with
only a few months of service, are still unfamiliar with the fine personal rela-
tionships the company enjoys with most of its employees. We do not feel
that this vote honestly represents the thinking of the majority of our Central
Market family.
General Counsel contends in his brief that the second paragraph quoted above
conveyed the impression that the organizational activities and sympathies of its
employees were known to Respondents, pointing out that William Golub "candidly
m It is possible that the reference to visitors was supposed to convey the meaning of
contact with union representatives by reason of some other conversation or incident to
which Ebert might have testified However, such testimony did not get into the record,
and, therefore , such a surmise is mere speculation. There is no showing that Hoyt had
knowledge of Ebert's meeting with a union representative on December 1 (noted herein-
above), nor is it reasonable to infer the existence of such knowledge.
CENTRAL MARKETS 509
testified that he had never asked employees in the North Troy store how they
voted nor did any of them volunteer such information to him." It does not appear
that the reasonable effect of the above-quoted statement was that which General
Counsel contends. On the contrary, it is concluded that the reasonable interpreta-
tion of the letter is that the Union won the election by only three votes and that
the votes of the four or five new or part-time employees who were "still unfamiliar
with the fine personal relationships the company enjoys with most of its employees"
must have been the margin which gave the Union its victory in the election. This
interpretation is based upon the accompanying explanation which indicates the
basis upon which the Respondents predicated said inference as to how the "new"
employees voted.
Therefore, it is concluded that the General Counsel has not proved by a pre-
ponderance of the evidence that the Respondents "attempted to give or gave the
impression of surveillance" of the concerted activities of its employees, as alleged
in paragraph 8(d) of the complaint.
4. Payment for attending meetings of employees
Respondents admitted that the employees were paid for the time they spent at
the breakfast and dinner on December 12 and 15, at which Golub gave speeches
expressing opposition to the Union. General Counsel contends that such payment
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and cites in support of his
contention U-Tell Corporation, 150 NLRB 1534, 1536. In the cited case the Board
affirmed the Trial Examiner's Decision which contained the following conclusion:
In paying its employees for attendance at plant meetings when prior to the
Union's organizing campaign it had not so paid them, -Respondent granted them
an economic benefit which, when taken in conjunction with Dumke's remarks on
the following day to the cashiers that if the Union came in they would be
deprived of certain specific benefits previously enjoyed, suggests the `fist inside
the velvet glove' as the Supreme Court described it in N.L.R.B. v. Exchange
Parts, 375 U.S. 405. This was violative of the Act. [Emphasis supplied.]
Although it is found hereinbelow that by certain portions of his speech delivered
at said breakfast and dinner parties, Golub violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
there is no showing that Respondents had not made payments to them for attend-
ing similar parties prior thereto . On the contrary , it appears from the uncontra-
dicted testimony of Golub that payment to employees for attending similar gather-
ings had been Respondents' practice for a number of years.
Therefore, it is concluded that the payment to employees for their time while
attending the December 12 and 15 meetings was not violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, since it was a continuation of a long established practice.
5. The general wage increase
Respondents admitted that they granted a general wage increase to their employ-
ees at the beginning of January 1965. The record reveals that the general wage
increase applied not only to the employees in the store involved in this case but
also to the employees in all 25 stores in the chain. The record shows that the
wage increase became effective as of January 4, 1965. In the year prior thereto,
there was also a general wage increase which became effective on February 10,
1964. John A. Moran, Respondents' personnel director, who entered the person-
nel department in April 1961, testified that there was no wage increase given for
the year 1963, but there was an increase in fringe benefits in lieu of a wage increase
and that after consideration by management in 1961, it was decided not to give a
wage increase for 1962. The record reveals that there was also a wage increase
given for 1961.
Moran further testified that it was the practice while he was in the personnel
department to review the financial situation and other relevant factors in the third
quarter of the calendar year to determine whether there should be an increase in
wages or benefits for the following calendar year. It appears that the chain's fiscal
year ended on May 1. He also testified that, around September 1964, such a
review was made at a meeting of top management in which he participated, and
that the decision was made at that time to grant a wage increase for the year
1965 which was to be announced at the forthcoming Christmas parties . He also
testified that one of the reasons which prompted the decision was that two of
Respondents' competitors, "A & P" and "Grand Union" had given a wage increase.
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Golub substantially corroborated his testimony, as did John J. Julian, superintend-
ent of store operations of the chain. The record reveals by their uncontradicted
testimony that it was Respondents' custom to announce wage increases or the grant-
ing of other benefits at the Christmas parties which it was the practice to give for
the employees in the entire chain. The above outlined testimony is credible. The
testimony of Moran and Golub as to the wage increases given by competitive chains
was not contradicted. Therefore, I credit the testimony that the decision to grant a
wage increase effective at the beginning of the year 1965 was made prior to the
advent of the Union. There is no showing that at the time of said decision, there was
any attempt to organize the store involved in this case, or, for that matter, any of
the other stores in the chain. Although it may reasonably be assumed that Respond-
ents were aware, after the advent of the Union, that the wage increase would tend
to discourage employees from accepting the Union as their bargaining representative,
in view of the above credited testimony it is my conclusion that the decision to grant
a wage increase was not motivated by the desire to undermine the Union's organiza-
tional attempts and, therefore, the granting of said wage increase was not violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of-the Act.
6. Golub's speeches on December 12 and 15
Several of General Counsel's witnesses testified to some of the statements Golub
made in the cour'se 'of his speeches to employees on December 12 and 15, and
Golub delivered aspeech on the witness stand from the notes he used in deliver-
ing the speeches on the two occasions. Golub testified, as did one of General
Counsel's witnesses, employee Phillip Banning, that he gave substantially the same
speech on both occasions. The statements which General Counsel's witnesses testi-
fied Golub made are substantially reflected in the speech he delivered on the stand,
which required approximately- 20 pages of the transcript. Considerable portions of
the speech have no relevance to the issues in this case.
Following is a resume of the pertinent portions and quotations of those sections
considered to be, particularly significant. After speaking at length on the theme
that everyone in management started from "the bottom" and giving a number of
examples of this; Golub' stated that employees were now "getting pressures from
the outside," and that ""outsiders," ostensibly referring to union representatives, were
telling the employees. what they can `do for them. Golub described in deprecatory
terms the good faith of the union representatives and the methods they use to
organize employees. He further described in detail the irresponsibility of the union
steward who would have "authority" over them." He also described the many costs
which might' be assessed against them by the ' Union and contrasted the- "privileges"
management has always given to them. In referring thereto he spoke as follows:
Now, you know that in our dealings with you, that we've always had personal
consideration, that where we can't [can] give you any personal privilege that
doesn't affect the stores, or the company, we are always happy to do so. If
you want to go and play in a basketball game, or if you want to attend that
prom, or if a child is sick, or for any one of a number of reasons you want
time-off, we've always been happy to do that. Under a union contract, that
.type of thing could be eliminated because we have to live under that contract,
and you have to live under the steward, and if we did any of those things,
that we would well be in violation of our contract, and therefore, we would
undoubtedly have to give that type of thing up, which is only one of the
normal human things that you know we've done through the years, and con-
tinue to do as part of our normal operation.
Golub next referred to the union organizers and related that "in a couple of
cases" the unions who employed them fired them because they tried to organize
a union to represent them. He stated that the salaries of the organizers and their
expenses would come out of the employees' pockets, that the dollars that would go
to the Union could be best employed by the Company in granting its employees
11 At this point Golub described the type of employee who would be used by the Union
to organize his fellow employees and would be made steward . Golub referred to such an
employee as one "who suddenly becomes a little bigshot ." Thus reference is considered
hereinbelow in resolving the issue of Ebert 's discharge.
CENTRAL MARKETS 511
benefits. Golub recited in considerable detail the benefits which the Company had
already granted its employees. Golub then spoke as follows:
Now, I want to tell you further that when they come in with their excessive
demands, and unrealistic demands, that they are not concerned with what's
best for you, and for us individually, and collectively, for us as a company.
You know that in our business , and you can check anywhere, we're happy to
come out with approximately a one percent net profit in our operation. That
means that we're satisfied if we can come out with a one cent per dollar profit
on all of the business we do, and when we talk about one cent or one per-
cent, you can see how tight our profit margin is, and therefore, how little lee-
way there is in adding expenses to our operations. Now, when they come in
with unrealistic demands that cause us to have a lot higher costs, something
has to suffer. Either we have to increase prices in order to meet it, or take
losses, and if we increase prices, there is always the question as to how much
business we'll do, because don't kid yourself, the public is the boss. They
know what they want, and if we don't give them what they want, they won't
come to us, and in relation to the amount of business we have, or can keep,
or can build, you and we either prosper or suffer by that. It's just that simple.
We know of a case around here in both large chains and small chains, where
these union demands, and union contracts, have caused problems. One of the
largest chains that has a contract now as a result of it, had to raise their
prices, and they therefore, became uncompetitive and lost business. As a
result, we've had many applications from people who work \ for them, and
many of our people around the stores have told us that they recently laid off
approximately twenty-five percent of their help, both full time and part time,
and that those that were kept on a part time basis, were often given the kind
of hours that they couldn't get to work on, and therefore, took cuts in their
hours. Now, we've heard this in many directions, both from applicants com-
ing in looking for jobs, and from our employees who have met their employees
at either lunch or dinner or elsewhere along- the- way, and we repeat what
they told us. In addition, we know of a small chain down in Kingston, known
as Bull- Markets, I've talked to their owner who I've known for years, and he
told me they were forced out of business recently because of a• union contract
they couldn't ,afford. I was told of another place near here known as Dun-
can's, an eating place, who had to close up because of the demands he couldn't
meet. There was a discount branch store around here who had to go out of
business because they couldn't-meet the demands put upon them by the union.
Now, don't again, think that there's any Santa Claus. Ours is the most com-
petitive business in the world, and if we're not competitive, we do not get
the amount of business we need to be successful and to grow. And if we're
forced to go on an unrealistic basis, we can be put into jeopardy in the things
that we're hoping to accomplish.
Following the above-quoted statements Golub told the employees that they had
the right to make up their own minds and the Company the right to tell them what
it thinks is right or wrong, reassured them that the Company would never threaten
or "consider doing anything" to employees as a result of their believing in unions,
and stated "the only basis that you have to be concerned about in your keeping
your job with the Company, is that you do your job reasonably well." He then
cited an example of an employee who had been "very union minded," that after
the Company won the election the employee "recognized that it was wrong to have
felt that.way about the unions," and even though the Company knew he had been
"union minded" it "pushed him along like we did in so many other cases, today
that kid is manager of our store in Hudson." Golub stated that he knew of no
instance "as of this moment" where the Company had ever taken any action against
anyone who was "union minded" and that as long as an employee does his job
reasonably well "he has nothing to fear."
Golub followed this by stating that it was the Company's practice to give bene-
fits and increases whenever it could, "usually on a yearly basis." He further
stated that as a result of a study made during the year the Company will again
grant a "general increase" to all employees. He related further that they had
been given an increase for the year 1964 and increased benefits in 1963, but the
Company had to "skip" giving anything in 1962 because of the economic situation.
512 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He further related that there were increases given to them in 1961. He stated
that it had always been the company policy to give its employees what it could
afford and it would continue to do so. He advised the employees that just because
they signed a union card they were not "obligated to stay by that decision." He
ended his speech with the following statement:
Remember that in your own dignity, in your own decision lies the best for
you as an individual, lies your greatest degree of freedom, as we see it, your
greatest degree of security for the future, because in what we have done
through the years together, we can continue to do again. Continue to do in
the future. Don't let anybody bring in tension or frighten you into anything
else. Let's stay free together, let's continue to grow together.
It is concluded that Golub clearly implied that inevitable results of the em-
ployees electing to have the Union represent them would be a loss of personal
privileges which the Company formerly extended to them and a layoff of some
of the employees, a cut in their hours or a closing of the store. This exceeded
the bounds of lawful expression of opinion within the meaning of Section 8(c)
of the Act. Despite the reassurances 12 contained in the speech, review of the
entire speech discloses that it was calculated to create and instill in the minds of
the employees a fear of economic suffering and loss of privileges as a result of
their adherence to the Union which constituted interference, restraint, and coercion
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Bernardin, Inc., 153 NLRB
939; Louisiana Manufacturing Company, 152 NLRB 1301; N.L.R.B. v. Harold
Miller, et al. d/bla Miller Charles & Co., 341 F.2d 870 (C.A. 2); Collins & Aikman
Corp., 143 NLRB 15.
7. The discharge of Ebert
Ebert, whose employment by the Company commenced on April 24, 1961, was
discharged on February 26, 1965. In the course of his employment he worked
in various stores in the Company's chain as produce clerk and, on quite a few
occasions, as produce manager. It appears that for the most part his stints as
produce manager were in relief of a regular produce manager.13 In July of
1963 he was transferred to the store involved in this case where he held the po-
sition of produce clerk.
On or about February 19, 1965, Hoyt told Ebert that he understood he wanted
his vacation to start the first of March and that it had been so arranged. Hoyt
also told him that Stephen Vamvalis, the produce manager, was taking his vaca-
tion the last week in February. Hoyt then,; asked Ebert if, he would "take over"
the job of produce manager while Vamvaliss was on-vacation to which Ebert agreed.
Commencing on February 22, Ebert worked in the capacity of produce man-
ager. On the morning of February 26, there were plastic bags of apples and pep-
pers in two 55-gallon drums used as garbage cans and located in a backroom.
According to Ebert there were some 25 to 30 3-pound bags of apples in the top
part of 1 drum and 1 bag of 12 peppers in the top part of the other which he
had placed there to be disposed of as garbage. It'appears,,that the bags are trans-
parent and that the Company's rule wa's that, when a bag containing produce has
become unsaleable because of spoilage of some of its contents, the bag must be
opened, the unsaleable merchandise removed, and the saleable produce repack-
aged. According to the testimony of Hoyt and John J. Julian, superintendent of
the Company's store operations, there were considerably more than one bag of
peppers in the drums, but it is not clear whether there were a greater number of
bags of apples than the number to which Ebert testified. Julian testified that one
drum was about three quarters full of unopened bags of apples and another drum
was about half filled with unopened bags of peppers. Ebert testified that on the
preceding day, Vamvalis, the produce manager for whom he was substituting, came
into the store and instructed him to throw away the bags of apples. Ebert fur-
ther testified that there were good apples in the bags and that he believed the
bags should not have been thrown away, but that he did not question Vamvalis'
instructions.
3' The reassurances were, in substance, that the Company would not discriminate against
any employee because of his belief in the Union and did not offset the effect of the im-
plication of the inevitable results of union representation.
n:It appears that the position of produce manager is not that of a supervisor.
CENTRAL MARKETS 513
About noon on February 26, Hoyt, who is district supervisor for several stores,
was in the store when Julian arrived with Pat DiCoco, a district manager of stores
in another area. Julian testified that he came to the store in the course of a rou-
tine inspection. According to Julian's testimony, he examined the produce sales
racks and found some unsaleable merchandise, and that after he gave instructions
for its disposal he walked into the backroom, where, he testified, he saw the two
drums, "one of the drums was overflowing with apples and one was overflowing
with peppers." He further testified that he examined the drums and found one
three quarters full of bags of apples which were unopened and the other was half
filled with unopened bags of peppers, that he then sent DiCoco, who was with him,
to get Hoyt and upon Hoyt's arrival, questioned him about the items in the gar-
bage cans; that Hoyt went out and brought Ebert back with him, that he asked
Ebert, "what the apples were doing in the garbage can unopened"; and that Ebert
replied that "he didn't have time to open them and they were being thrown away."
Julian testified that he instructed Hoyt to get the produce department cleaned up,
that he then went on a tour of the rest of the store; and that when Hoyt rejoined
him, in the course of his tour, he told Hoyt to discharge Ebert. Julian further
testified that the reason he ordered Ebert's discharge was that Ebert "was destroy-
ing merchandise that could have been sold." He admitted on cross-examination
that he was "angry" at the time he instructed Hoyt to discharge Ebert. Hoyt sub-
stantially corroborated Julian's testimony except for a minor inconsistency as to
who questioned Ebert about the unopened bags of produce.14
According to Ebert's testimony on direct examination he was not called into
the backroom and questioned about the unopened bags in the garbage cans. Ebert
testified that about 2 p.m. (some 2 hours after Julian's inspection of the store)
he was given a warning slip by Hoyt together with a "white slip" enumerating
his acts of misconduct including the destruction of saleable merchandise (which
was the second of the seven items,of misconduct set forth). Ebert further testi-
fied that he "tried to explain some of the things on it [the list containing the seven
items of misconduct]," that Hoyt replied that Ebert was the manager and "respon-
sible for it" and that Hoyt would not listen to him. However, this testimony is.
inconsistent with his later testimony. On cross-examination Ebert testified that-
Hoyt did question him as to why he "was throwing out all of the apples," and it
appears from his testimony at this point that the questioning was done in the
backroom in front of the garbage cans containing the unopened bags of produce
and was prior to Ebert's receipt of the warning notice and white slip.15 Ebert further
testified that he was notified of his discharge at the end of he day, about 5 p.m.
Vamvalis, who was called as a witness by Respondents, testified that, although
he was in the store on several occasions during his vacation, he did not give Ebert
instruction to throw out the apples. On the other hand, not only did Ebert testify
that Vamvalis gave him instructions to dispose of the bags of apples, but also.
that Vamvalis came in "every day" during his vacation and gave him instructions
"approximately every day." However, when Ebert was asked to give the details,
of Vamvalis' visits to the store and the instructions he gave Ebert, Ebert's testi-
mony was vague and inconsistent with his claim that he received instructions from
Vamvalis "approximately every day." In contrast thereto, Ebert related in con-
siderable detail other facts with respect to that week, such as the hours he and,
others worked and the condition of the produce on the sales racks.
Ebert's testimony contained inconsistencies and evasions. On the other hand,
both Julian and Vamvalis appeared to me to be testifying to the best of their
recollection and, as indicated above, Hoyt appeared to be a candid witness. There—
14 According to Hoyt's testimony it was he who asked Ebert why the bags were in the
garbage cans.
15 Ebert testified that not only were the apples "discussed ," but the peppers were men-
tioned as well , and that nobody made an effort to remove any of the bags of apples or
peppers from the drums during the course of the conversation about them . Ebert further
testified that he explained about Vamvalis' instructions and Hoyt replied that he (Ebert)
was the manager that week, not Vamvalis. It appears that this discussion occurred
shortly after noon , because there is uncontradicted testimony that immediately after the
discovery of the unopened bags of produce , they were opened and the produce repackaged.
243-084-67-vol 159-34 1
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fore, the testimony of Julian and Hoyt as to the facts surrounding the discharge
of Ebert is credited, as is Vamvalis' denial that he gave instructions to Ebert to
dispose of the apples.
There are factors present which tend to cast suspicion on the Company's motive
in discharging Ebert. Ebert was active in attempting to organize the employees
in the store. The record discloses the Company's animus toward the Union; it
had knowledge of Ebert's union partisanship; and as was indicated in Golub's
speeches on December 12 and 15, the Company was aware of the Union's prac-
tice of using an employee to act as an organizer.16 However, there are other fac-
tors appearing in the record to indicate that the discharge was not discrimina-
torily motivated The discharge did not occur until almost 3 months after the
Company had knowledge of Ebert's strong prounion attitude which left him with
a considerable amount of time to proselytize other employees. Also, the record
discloses that the rule with regard to the destruction of saleable merchandise was
considered by the Company, and was understood by the employees, to be of cardi-
nal importance. It is understandable that in the successful operation of a produce
business considerable care must be exercised to avoid waste. It is concluded from
the record that a breach of the rule was considered by the Company, and Julian,
in particular, to be in the nature of a venial, if not a mortal, sin. It is concluded
that the discharge was the result of Julian's angry reaction to the discovery of
Ebert's breach of the company rule. General Counsel contends in his brief that
the list of seven items of misconduct which was given to Ebert prior to his dis-
charge contradicts the contention by Respondent that he was discharged for vio-
lating the abovementioned rule. However, the credited testimony of Julian and
Hoyt discloses that Julian gave Hoyt the order to fire Ebert without any statement
of his reason and it appears appropriate to conclude that the acts of misconduct
(including the action of throwing away the apples and peppers) on the list given to
Ebert were supplied by Hoyt and Cross, the store manager, as their explanation
for Julian's decision. Therefore, it is concluded that Julian's decision to fire Ebert
was not for a pretextual reason, but for what he considered good cause. Conse-
quently, it is found that General Counsel has not proved by a preponderance of
the evidence that Ebert's discharge was discriminatorily motivated.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record of the
case, I make the following:
Conclusions of Law
1. By the statements contained in speeches made by William Golub on De-
cember 12 and 15, Respondents engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion
of their employees within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, as alleged
in paragraph 8(c) of the complaint in this case.
2. General Counsel failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any of
the other allegations of unfair labor practices in the complaint.
There will next be considered the issues raised in Case 3-CA-2654 which
involves the Company's store in North Troy, New York. Thereafter there will
be set forth in this Decision the recommended remedies and Recommended Order
with respect to both cases heard in this proceeding.
B. Case 3-CA-2654 (the North Troy store)
It is alleged in the complaint in this case that the Respondents violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union after it had been
certified as the bargaining representative of the employees of the North Troy store
in representation proceedings in Case 3-RC-3531.17
Summary of Proceedings in Case 3-RC-3531
A petition for certification as representative was filed in said case by the Union
on November 9, 1964, for following described unit: All regular full-time and
regular part-time employees employed at the Respondents' retail store at 6 102d
Street, North Troy, New York, but excluding all store managers , office clerical
employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
As indicated hereinabove , Golub made reference to the Union 's use of an employee
for that purpose, labeling him as a "little bigshot "
17 Although only the Central Markets Operating Co was named as employer in said
proceedings , it was found hereinabove that it and the other Respondent herein are a
single employer.
CENTRAL MARKETS 515
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election was
held on or about December 16, 1964, at which the majority of employees of Re-
spondents in the unit described above, by secret ballot conducted under the super-
vision of the Regional Director for Region 3, designated and selected the Union
as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with Respondents.
Respondents filed objections to the election which objections the Regional Direc-
tor recommended be overruled by the Board. He further recommended that
certification of representation be issued. Thereafter, on March 30, 1965, the
Board issued its Decision which adopted the Regional Director's findings and
recommendations and certified the Union as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the above described unit which was deemed to be appropriate.
The Issues Involved in Case 3-CA-2654
The record reveals that on April 26, 1965, the Union by letter to the Com-
pany, requested a meeting "for the purpose of negotiating a labor contract." By
letter dated April 29, 1965, the Company declined the request, stating as reason
therefor the following:
A serious question of law with respect to the National Labor Board's deci-
sion on the request for review by the employer as to the conduct of the
election at that store is being raised by the employer. Since the only way
of challenging a decision of the Board is by bringing the matter to a head
through subsidiary and subsequent hearings, we are compelled to take this
position.
The record reveals that the Respondents admit all of the facts alleged in the
complaint in this case, but deny the conclusions of law therein predicated upon
such facts. The record also reveals that the only purpose of said denial was to
test the validity of the certification of the Union. The Respondents offered no
evidence in this proceeding with respect to -this case, but indicated that they were
relying upon the record in the representation proceeding.
Under well established law I am bound by the Board's ruling in the aforesaid
representation proceeding and by the certification.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of Respondents found to have been committed by
them in section III, hereinabove, occurring in connection with the business opera-
tion of Respondents described in section I, hereinabove , have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondents engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and that they
,take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be further recommended that a notice (Appendix A) with respect to
the unfair labor practices found to have been committed in Case 3-CA-2567
be posted not only in the store in Glens Falls, New York, involved in the said
.case but also in all other stores of the Company where the employees thereof
heard a speech by William Golub similar in substance to the speech delivered by
him before the employees of said Glens Falls store. The record reveals that simi-
lar speeches were delivered by Golub to employees of other stores in the Com-
pany's chain. However, the record does not disclose which of said stores they
were, and, therefore, it will be left to the Regional Director for Region 3 to deter-
mine, in the compliance stage, in which stores said notice should be posted. It
will also be recommended that a notice (Appendix B) be posted in the North
Troy store with respect to the unfair labor practices found to have been com-
mitted in Case 3-CA-2654.
Based upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) On March 30, 1965, the Union was certified by the Board as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative for the following appropriate unit : all regular full-
time and regular part-time employees employed at the Respondents ' retail store
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
located at 6 102d Street, North Troy, New York, but excluding all store man-
agers, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(2) At all times since March 30, 1965, the Union has been the exclusive repre-
sentative of the above-described unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
(3) Commencing on or about April 29, 1965 and at all times thereafter, Respond-
ents refused, and have continued to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the above-
described unit.
(4) By said refusal, Respondents engaged in, and are engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that: the Golub Corporation
and Central Markets Operating Co., Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
(1) Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering , restraining , and coercing employees by implying that, as an
inevitable result of employees selecting Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Butcher Work-
men and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO,
as their collective-bargaining representative they would suffer a loss of privileges
and economic detriment.
(b) Refusing to bargain with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Butcher Workmen
and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1, AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive representative of employees in the following appropriate unit: all
regular full-time and regular part-time employees employed in their retail store
located at 6 102d Street, North Troy, New York, but excluding all store man-
agers, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed to be necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the ex-
clusive representative of all employees in the above-described unit, and embody
in a signed agreement any understanding reached. Post at their store in Glens
Falls, New York, as well as at such other of their stores as may be designated by
the Regional Director of Region 3,18 copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A"; and post at their store in North Troy, New York, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B." 19 Copies of said notices, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being signed by Respondents' repre-
sentatives, shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondents have taken to comply
herewith2e
.is It is recommended in the section hereinabove titled "V . The Remedy" that the addi-
tional store or stores be determined by the Regional Director
11 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 notices . In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
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 the Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
CENTRAL MARKETS 517
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint in Case 3-CA-2567 be dis-
missed except for the violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act set forth in para-
graph 8(c) which were alleged and were found to have been committed by Golub.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner 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 interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees by implying that,
as an inevitable result of their selection of Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Butcher
Workmen and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1,
AFL-CIO, as their collective-bargaining representative, they would suffer a
loss of privileges and economic detriment. -
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist the above-named labor organization, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining 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 in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming or remaining
members of the above-named or any other labor organization except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement atuhorized by Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, as aforesaid. -
THE GOLUB CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
CENTRAL MARKETS OPERATING CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, 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, Fourth
Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Tele-
phone 842-3100.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request , bargain with Amalgamated Meat Cutters , Butcher
Workmen and Store Clerks of North America, District Union Local No. 1,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the appropriate
unit described hereinbelow , and if an agreement is reached , embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
The appropriate unit is as follows:
All regular full-time and regular part -time employees employed at our
retail store located at 6 102d Street , North Troy, New York, but exclud-
ing all store managers , office clerical employees , watchmen, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce employees the exercise of
their protected rights by refusing to bargain with the aforesaid Union as the
representative of the employees in the above described unit.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner , interfere with , restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form , join, or assist the above -named labor organization , or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos -
ing or 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 agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment , as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming or remaining
members of the above -named , or any other, labor organization except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of
the Act, as aforesaid.
THE GOLUB CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
CENTRAL MARKETS OPERATING CO., 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, Fourth
Floor , The 120 Building , 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Tele-
phone 842-3100.
Puritana Manufacturing Corporation and International Ladies
Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO. Case 24-CA-2094.
June 16, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 28, 1966, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a. brief in support thereof. The Gen-
eral Counsel also filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
159 NLRB No. 45.