Certified Grocers Of Illinois, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 133 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

CERTIFIED GROCERS 133
Certified Grocers of Illinois , Inc and Highway
Drivers, Dockmen , Spotters, Rampmen, Meat,
Packing House and Allied Products Drivers and
Helpers and Miscellaneous Employees Union,
Local No 710 a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America Case 13-CA-24181
Margo R Newman Esq (Asher Pavalon Gittler & Green
field Ltd) of Chicago Illinois for the Charging
Party
Lawrence M Cohen Esq and Robert S Letchinger Esq
(Fox and Grove Chartered) of Chicago Illinois for
the Respondent
DECISION
17 September 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENN'S AND JOHANSEN
On 4 April 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Mary Ellen R Benard issued the attached decision
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, the Charging Party filed a brief in opposition
to the Respondent's exceptions, and the General
Counsel filed cross exceptions to the judge's deci-
sion , a memorandum in support of his cross excep-
tions, and an answering brief The Respondent filed
a memorandum in opposition to the General Coun
sel's cross exceptions to the decision of the judge 1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge s rulings, findings, and
conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re
spondent, Certified Grocers of Illinois, Inc, Chica
go, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and as
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order as
modified
Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b)
"(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act
i On 26 August 1985 the Respondent in Case 13 -CA-24181 and the
Employer in Case 13-RC-16433 made a motion to consolidate these two
proceedings On 4 September 1985 the Union filed an opposition to the
motion The General Counsel filed a response stating that the General
Counsel does not oppose the motion The Board denies the motion to
consolidate
2 Unlike the judge Member Dennis fords it unnecessary to rely on
Brigadier Industries Corp 271 NLRB 656 (1984)
Thomas Nixon Esq and Melvyn B Basan Esq Chicago
Illinois for the General Counsel
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARY ELLEN R BENARD Administrative Law Judge
The original charge in Case 13-CA-24181 was filed on
April 26 1984 by Highway Drivers Dockmen Spotters
Rampmen Meat Packing House and Allied Products
Drivers and Helpers and Miscellaneous Employees
Union Local No 710 affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen
and Helpers of America (the Union) against Certified
Grocers of Illinois Inc (Respondent) On June 4 1984
the complaint was issued and as amended it alleges in
substance that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the National Labor Relations Act by threatening em
ployees with disciplinary action if they disclosed employ
ees names and addresses to the Union or if they dis
closed employees rates of pay to any person not em
ployed by the Respondent The Respondent filed an
answer in which it denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices
A hearing was held before me on August 3 1984 in
Chicago Illinois Following the hearing the General
Counsel the Charging Party and the Respondent filed
briefs, which have been considered i
On the entire record in this case and from my observa
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor I make the fol
lowing
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Chicago Illinois where it
is engaged in the wholesale sale and distribution of gro
cery products During the 12 month period preceding is
suance of the complaint a representative period the Re
spondent in the course and conduct of its business oper
ations purchased and received at its Chicago facility
products goods and materials valued in excess of
$50 000 directly from points outside the State of Illinois
The answer admits and I find that the Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act, and I further find that it will effectuate the put
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act
1 The Respondent also filed two letters to me with copies to the other
parties advising me of certain recent Board decisions which the Re
spondent deemed pertinent and a Motion to Reject Exhibits Attached to
Union s brief to the Administrative Law Judge Thu motion is discussed
below
276 NLRB No 19
134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
The Respondent is a cooperative grocery purchasing
organization whose members are retail stores The Re
spondent also operates a bakery and a fluid dairy and
manufactures ice cream and some cultured dairy prod
ucts Three of the Respondents facilities are involved in
this proceeding its administrative office on Central
Avenue in Chicago known as the Central facility its
warehouse in Hodgkins Illinois, called the Hodgkins lo
cation and a facility known as the Bakery which is lo
cated a block from the Hodgkins warehouse The Re
spondent has approximately 1200 to 1400 employees all
except the 100 to 200 clerical employees are unionized,
and the Respondent recognizes several different labor or
ganizations as bargaining representatives of employees in
various units
Sometime in early 19842 the Union began an organiz
mg campaign among the Respondents clerical employ
ees The Union advised the Respondent of the organza
tional efforts by a letter dated February 22 in which it
also advised that employee Starr Rokosik was chairing
the organizing committee On March 28 the Union filed
a petition in Case 13-RC-16433 3 seeking a Board-con
ducted election A hearing was held in that case and in
the course of that hearing the parties agreed that the ap
propriate bargaining unit would include clerical employ
ees from both the Hodgkins and the Central Avenue fa
cilities and would also include the four clerical employ
ees who worked at the Bakery 4
B The Alleged Threats
1 The threats to discipline employees for revealing
employee names and addresses
On some unspecified dates but apparently in Febru
ary the Union mailed campaign literature to the employ
ees at their homes Keith Alessi the Respondents secre
tary treasurer testified that, about the end of February
employee Laurie Buekema came to see him in his office
and told him that she was upset because she had re
ceived mail from the Union at her home address She
asked how the Union had received that information
Buekema further said that she had recently moved and
did not want her new address publicized and that she
had provided the new address to the Respondent but to
no one else Alessi further testified that Buekema ex
plained her reasons for not wanting her address disclosed
and that he apologized to her for what he considered to
be an infringement of her privacy According to Alessi
he then asked the Respondents personnel director to
find where Buekema s new address was recorded the
1 All dates are 1984 unless otherwise indicated
8 Although the petition was not introduced into evidence the Re
spondent attached a copy of it to its brief No party objected to this
action and in any event the petition is a public document and it is appro-
priate for me to take official notice of it as background to the instant
case
* The petition describes the bargaining unit requested as comprising all
regular full time and part time hourly paid clerical employees at the Re
spondent a three facilities
personnel director later advised him that the address was
in a card file maintained in the personnel office to which
only top management and four personnel office employ
ees had access The card file was apparently the only
place where this address for Buekema was listed S how
ever it is undisputed that there was no further investiga
tion about how the Union had received the address
Alessi further credibly testified that he was asked by
Michelle Blair a secretary how the Union had received
her address and that at least one supervisor told him of
receiving similar inquiries from employees
a The meetings of management and employees
The parties stipulated that at the beginning of March
the Respondent held four meetings two at the Central
Avenue facility on Tuesday March 6 and two at Hodg
kms on Thursday March 8 It is undisputed that all
hourly paid clerical employees were required to attend
one of these sessions It is also undisputed that at all of
the meetings Wendell Smith the Respondents president
spoke to the employees followed by several other mem
bers of management including Alessi
Starr Rokosik chair of the organizing committee and
an accounts payable clerk at the Central Avenue facility
credibly testified6 that she attended the first meeting at
that facility that about 100 employees were there and
that Smith opened the meeting by discussing various
changes he would like to see in the Respondents oper
ations that Alessi then talked about the financial side of
the business and that Ed Poore the Respondents vice
president in charge of distribution and warehousing
spoke about changes in the warehouse operation At that
point Smith again took the podium' and told the em
ployees that as they knew the Union was conducting an
organizing campaign Smith asked the employees not to
sign authorization cards but told them that if they had
any questions they could ask them
It is undisputed that Buekema then raised her hand
and said that she would like to know how the Union had
obtained her name and address According to Rokosik
Alessi replied that management did not know, that em
ployee names and addresses were confidential informs
tion and that there is only one of several places [such
information] could have come from and when we find
out disciplinary action will be taken
Employee Joyce Grennan a payroll clerk and co-chair
of the Union s organizing committee, credibly testified8
that she attended the second meeting held a8i the Central
Avenue facility and that that meeting followed the same
format as the earlier meeting to which Rokosik testified
After Smith spoke the second time according to Gren
nan he asked if there were any questions There were no
Alessi impressed me as being candid on this point and I therefore
credit his account of this conversation with Buekema and his subsequent
actions Neither Buekema nor the personnel director testified
Rokostk appeared to be candid and to exhibit good recollection of
the events at issue I therefore credit her
7 Alessi testified that , after Poore spoke Hank Greenberg the senior
vice president for merchandising made some comments Rokosik testified
that she did not recall whether or not Greenberg spoke
As did Rokosik, Grennan appeared to testify forthrightly and to ex
habit good recollection I therefore credit her
CERTIFIED GROCERS 135
questions from employees and at that point -Alessi
stepped forward and said that at the first meeting'an em-
ployee had indicated her concern about her name and
address being given out. Alessi said that he thought this
information was confidential, that it had, come from the
payroll, personnel, • or data processing departments, and
that, because it was confidential information, if he found
who had been responsible for its disclosure, disciplinary
action would be taken. -
Alessi testified, and it is undisputed, that at the Hodg-
kins meetings he told the employees in attendance that a
question had been asked at an earlier meeting about how
the Union had obtained employee names and addresses,
and if he learned that, in fact, an employee had given
that information to the Union and he found out who that
employee was, that person would be disciplined.
There is some dispute about whether management reg-
ularly scheduled meetings with, the unrepresented em-
ployees. Alessi testified that the Respondent held meet-
ings semiannually to advise employees of current matters
within the Company, that the last such meeting had been
in October or November 1983, and that the, March meet-
ings were held in accordance with this practice. Rokosik
testified on direct examination that, although she had at-
tended meetings about profit sharing before, she had
never attended a meeting similar to that-held in March.
However, on cross-examination Rokosik recalled that she
had attended a meeting'in November 1983 where Alessi
and Smith spoke and where the nature of the Company
was discussed as well as 'the reasons some employees
could not receive wage raises .9 Grennan testified that
she went • to a meeting in October 1983 but that that
meeting was held in a small room next to Alessi's office,
while the March meeting was held in the cafeteria, and
that all the heads of the major departments were at the
March .meeting, while not all the department heads at-
tended the October, meeting. Grennan further testified
that the Respondent holds profit-sharing meetings once
each year, but employees are not required to go to them.
I credit Rokosik and Grennan and therefore find that
the Respondent did not have a practice prior to October
1983 of requiring unrepresented employees to attend
semiannual meetings about the state of the Company.
b. Alessi's comment in February
Grennan credibly testified that some time in late Feb-
ruary, after the Union had sent its- letter announcing the
organizing campaign, -- she saw Alessi walk past her
office, looking very upset . She overheard Alessi say that
"confidential information was, leaked and if I find the
person responsible - for it they will be reprimanded."
Grennan testified that she looked up because Alessi was
speaking loudly, and that Alessi looked directly at her
and then walked into the personnel department. It is un-
disputed that neither Grennan nor any other employee
has been accused of providing confidential information
9 Although Rokosik's testimony on cross-examination thus conflicts
somewhat with her testimony on direct, she explained that she initially
forgot about attending the ' 1983 meeting, and I credit that explanation. I
therefore do not find that this inconsistency reflects adversely on her
overall credibility.
to the Union and that no employee had been disciplined
for such conduct.
2. The threat to discipline employees for disclosing •
wage rates
As noted above, a petition was filed in Case 13-RC-
16433 and a hearing was conducted in that proceeding.
On April 20, during Alessi's testimony at that hearing,
there was, a discussion between Edwin Benn, counsel for
the Union, and Lawrence Cohen, counsel for the Re-
spondent' In the presence of Rokosik and Grennan,
Cohen stated that employee wage rates were confidential
information, under company policy, and went on' to say
that:
I want to make that very clear, if that information
was revealed, it would be cause for discharge of the
employee involved. We don't reveal to any outside
source whatsoever what the pay rates of the em-
ployees are at Certified and I am not going to
permit that to come in at this hearing.. . .
Subsequently, there was' the following exchange between
Cohen and Alessi:
Q. Mr. Alessi, is it company policy that informa-
tion with respect to pay rates is confidential?
A. Yes.
Q. Is my statement [correct] that an individual
who reveals to an outside person the pay rates of
employees of the company, is subject to disciplinary
.action?
A. That is correct.
C. The Confidentiality of Employee Wage Rates,
Names,, and Addresses
It is undisputed that the Respondent does not have any
written policy applicable to hourly employees which
states. that employee names , addresses , or wage rates are
to be considered confidential information ,' ° and Alessi
credibly testified . that he did not recall ever orally an-
nouncing . such a policy prior to the March meetings. Ro-
kosik and Grennan both credibly testified that they had
not been aware before the March meeting that employ-
ees' names, addresses , or wage rates were considered
confidential and that they had never been so advised by
any member of management nor had they been told that
employees would be disciplined for disclosing such infor-
mation . Rokosik further credibly testified that , she had
called the personnel office in `January 1982 to ask for the
address of an employee who had suffered a broken wrist
in order to send her flowers and that she made a similar
request in December 1983, and that both times she was
given the addresses without question.
10 There is a document entitled "Conflict of Interest Policy" which
salaried employees are required to read and sign annually and which
states that it is a conflict of interest "for an employee to use or reveal
outside the Company (without proper authorization ) confidential informa-
tion concerning the Company" However, it is undisputed that the docu-
ment was not distributed to hourly employees.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Grennan also testified that as a payroll clerk she has
access to wage information and is sometimes asked for
information about specific employees who are subject to
wage assignments who have applied for loans or who
are claiming compensation for time lost from work due
to an injury According to Grennan usually she receives
a form signed by the employee from the person seeking
the information but some of the forms do not include
the employees signature in either event she completes
the form and sends it back to the requesting party Simi
larly Judy Dydo a personnel clerk credibly testified
that she has access to employees personnel records in
cluding their wages and home addresses and that prior
to March she had never been told that such information
was confidential or that she could be disciplined for dis
closing it Dydo also credibly testified that in the course
of her work she answers requests made by department
stores and other consumer lenders for verification of em
ployment However according to Dydo she has been in
structed not to answer such requests when made by tele
phone unless she has been previously given permission
by the employee about whom the request was made
Like Grennan Dydo testified that the forms she received
did not always include an employees signature but that
she completes and returns them nonetheless Dydo also
testified that the area where she works is locked as are
the files where the information is maintained and that it
was her understanding that she would not be authorized
to provide information about employees en masse to
someone who called or wrote and asked for it without
explanation
Alessi testified that employee names and addresses are
maintained in the Respondents personnel payroll and
computer departments that only employees who need to
know such information in order to perform their jobs
have access to them and that this policy had been in
effect throughout his tenure with the Respondent and
was standard business practice Alessi further testified
that except for persons or entities authorized by an em
ployee to ha% a such information the only persons out
side the Company who would be entitled to it would be
auditors those holding a court order or someone who
needed the information because of workmen s compensa
tion or similar proceedings and that he would not distm
guish between a rule prohibiting employees from disclos
ing company documents and one prohibiting employees
from giving out information learned from company doc
uments in the course of their employment
It is undisputed that the Respondent has not accused
any specific individual of providing the employees
names and addresses to the Union and that no employee
has been disciplined for such disclosure It is also undis
puted that the Respondent sent a mailing about the union
campaign to the employees at their homes
D Analysis and Conclusions
1 The parties contentions
The General Counsel contends that any lawful reasons
the Respondent may have had for its threats to discipline
any employee found to have disclosed employee names
and addresses or wage rates were pretextual and that the
threats were made in response to and in order to discour
age the employees union activity In support of these
contentions the General Counsel relies on inter alia the
evidence that (1) there was no rule that such information
was confidential pnor to the Union s organizing cam
paign and (2) such information was disclosed to third
parties other than the Union and thus any rule respect
mg confidentiality was disparately enforced With re
spect to the threat to discipline employees for revealing
other employees addresses the General Counsel addi
tionally relies on the timing of the threats which was
soon after the Respondent received the Union s letter an
nouncmg the campaign and on the undisputed evidence
that even after Alessi learned where Buekema s address
was kept and that only four employees had access to that
card file he made no further investigation into the
matter that the Respondent did not announce to the em
ployees with access to personnel records its policy that
such records were confidential but instead made an issue
of the matter at meetings attended by employees to
whom such information was not available and that
Alessi made the threat although he had apparently previ
ously decided not to further investigate the question of
who had given Buekema s address to the Union Finally
the General Counsel asserts that the Respondents rule is
either unlawfully overly broad because a disclosure of
the information at issue would have been protected con
certed activity or unlawfully vague because the threat
could be construed as one to discipline what could be
protected concerted activity
The General Counsel additionally contends that the
threat to discipline employees who disclose wage mfor
mation was disparately enforced for although the threat
was to discipline employees who revealed pay rates to
any outside person it clearly applied to disclosures to
the Union since both Grennan and Dydo testified that
they had sometimes given such information without ex
plicit authorization from an employee
The Union adopted the legal arguments and analysis
articulated by the General Counsel and further asserts
that in the representation proceeding the Board ordered
the Respondent to produce the wage information the Re
spondent had asserted to be confidential and thus the
Respondents claims of confidentiality have already been
rejected by the Board The Union further attached to its
brief the Respondents request to the Board for special
permission to appeal the hearing officer s and the Re
gional Directors rulings denying portions of the Re
spondent s petition to revoke the subpoena calling for
production of the wage information the subpoena the
portions of the transcript containing the hearing officer s
ruling the Regional Directors ruling the Boards tele
graphic ruling denying the appeal in pertinent part and
the information consequently submitted by the Respond
ent along with its cover letter The Union also asked that
I take official notice of the Boards order requiring the
production of the wage information
As noted above the Respondent filed a motion to
reject the exhibits attached to the Union s brief The Re
spondent asserts inter alma that these documents are it
relevant to the issues before me and should not be admit
CERTIFIED GROCERS
ted into evidence, pointing out that an administrative
agency's requirement that a party to one of its proceed-
ings produce certain information at that proceeding has
nothing, to do with whether that party. considers the in-
formation confidential for its own purposes, and that the
information the Respondent was ordered to produce in-
volved the wage ranges of certain job classifications, not
employee names , addresses , or specific wage rates.
With respect to the merits, the Respondent contends,
in essence , that. it has a longstanding policy that employ-
ee addresses and wage rates are confidential information
which may be disclosed only to third parties pursuant.to
a written request regarding an employee 's loan applica-
tion or credit reference, that there are legitimate and sub-
stantial business justifications for its prohibition of disclo-
sure of confidential information and that its enforcement
of that prohibition is therefore not unlawful even if it in-
trudes upon protected activities, that Alessi's comments
at issue were lawful statements of the Respondent's
policy, that nothing precluded employees from discuss-
ing wages or addresses among themselves or acquiring
such information from nonconfidential sources, and that
there is no evidence that the nondisclosure policy, was
established or maintained in order to inhibit protected ac-
tivity. With respect to this latter contention, the Re-
spondent asserts that the only reason the policy was dis-
cussed in the context of the organizational campaign was
that the issue arose when the Union obtained the. em-
ployees' addresses.
2. The Respondent's motion to reject exhibits
F agreee with the Respondent that the documents at-
tached to the Union's brief are not relevant to the issues
in this case, for a Federal agency's requirement in the
course of-one of its proceedings that one party -disclose
information to another does ' not warrant an inference
that in another context that same information should not
be, considered confidential. I therefore have not consid-
ered the documents attached to the Union's brief in
making my findings below.
3. The merits
There is no question' "'that an employer may prohibit
employees from disclosing information which they ac-
quire from the employer's private or confidential
records. It is also clear that lists of employee names and
addresses and wage rates are among the types of infor-
mation that an employer may properly maintain as confi-
dential records.' 1
I do not agree with the General Counsel and the
Union that the record establishes that the Respondent
promulgated its rules regarding the confidentiality of
wage rates and employee addresses in response to and in
order to inhibit the Union 's organizing campaign . Signifi-
.cantly, although the record establishes that in the past
employee addresses had been disclosed to other employ-
ees or to third parties and employee wage rates had been
disclosed to third parties without the specific authoriza-
11 Ridgely Mfg Co, 207 NLRB 193 ( 1973), International Business Ma-
chines Corp., 265 NLRB 638 (1982)
137
tion of the employee at issue , as far as this record , shows,
all.these d isclosures were made in circumstances where it
reasonably could be presumed that the ' employee would
have no objection or in response to some official require-
ment . Thus, Rokosik asked for the addresses of employ-
ees in ' order to send flowers or make a similar gesture
and, although Grennan and Dydo sometimes gave out in-
formation about employees on forms which did .not in-
clude a specific authorization by, the employee, it appears
that those forms were submitted to. the Respondent be-
cause , the employee was subject to a wage assignment or
had applied . for credit or was receiving, ,a service from
the requesting firm or individual.
Finally, as the Respondent pointed ' out , in the letters
sent to me after the briefs were filed, the Board has re-
cently issued two decisions bearing on the issues here.
Roadway Express, 271 NLRB 1238 (1984), involved the
discharge of an employee for disclosing to a union bills
of lading which were the employer 's private business
records; there was no rule published to employees which
prohibited dissemination of the information involved.
The Board found the-discharge lawful, emphasizing that
the employee went 'beyond the normal scope ^ of his em-
ployment in taking and copying the bills of lading with-
out the employer 's authorization or approval and that
such conduct is. not protected by the Act. The Board'
further, stated that:
The presence or absence of a -specific company rule
is a-factor in deciding whether' an employee's con-
,duct is protected by the Act, but it is not the con-
trolling factor . Furthermore , the absence of a writ-
ten rule is of little, significance here, where the doc-
uments taken were clearly the Respondent 's private
business records and were taken from files to which
[the employee] had no proper access . In such cir-
cumstances , an employer, regardless of whether it
has a written rule , has a right to expect its employ-
ees not to, go into its files and to take its business
records for whatever purposes they wish , and it is
not unreasonable for an employer to consider such
conduct -as justifying discipline.12
In the' second' case, Brigadier Industries Corp., 271
NLRB 656 (1984), the Board held that "[w]hen an em-
ployer adopts a'"rule during , a union campaign , it does not
automatically follow that the rule is invalid . If the em-
ployer has acted for legitimate business reasons-rather
than for union reasons-its promulgation of a rule cannot
be deemed unlawful . 13 In the instant case, although the
timing of the announcements of the rule is somewhat sus-
picious , it is undisputed that the discussion of the matter
at the first meeting in March was ' prompted by 'Bueke-
ma's question . There is no evidence contrary to Alessi's
credible testimony that ' he was advised that several em-
ployees were curious about how the Union had received
their addresses and that Buekema had told him before
that meeting that she was disturbed at.receiving litera-
ture from the Union at her new address. Further, it ap-
12 271 NLRB 1238, 1239.,
13 271 NLRB 656, 657
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pears that the Respondent had never before been faced
with the problem of an outside organization receiving a
list of addresses of a large group of employees
In these circumstances I conclude that a finding that
the Respondent announced its rules regarding disclosure
of employee addresses and wage rates in order to inhibit
the union activity is not warranted However this con
clusion does not dispose of all issues in this case Em
ployee names and addresses and information about wage
rates are important tools in organizing campaigns and al
though an employee would not be protected when ob
taining such records surreptitiously it is well established
that an employer may not deny employees the right to
use information which is openly available 14 This distinc
tion is obviously significant however the Respondent s
threats to discipline employees who disclosed names and
addresses or wage rates included no qualification to mdi
cate to employees that they were prohibited only from
giving out information from company files, as opposed to
information they had of their own knowledge Indeed
the blanket nature of the threats and the fact that Ales
sI s threats at the employee meetings as to disclosure of
names and addresses were made to all the clerical em
ployees including those who would not have access in
the normal course of their work to the information
would have reasonably led the employees to believe that
any disclosure of names addresses and/or wage rates,
regardless of how they became aware of the information
could lead to discipline The cases cited above establish
that such a pronouncement is unlawfully overly broad
for it clearly prohibits protected as well as unprotected
activity I so find and I therefore conclude that, by an
pouncing overly broad rules regarding disclosure of em
ployee names addresses, or wage rates and by threaten
ing employees with discipline for violation of such rules
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
On the basis of the above findings of fact and the
entire record in this case I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Certified Grocers of Illinois Inc is an employer en
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2)
(6) and (7) of the Act
2 Highway Drivers Dockmen Spotters Rampmen
Meat Packing House and Allied Products Drivers and
Helpers and Miscellaneous Employees Union Local No
710 affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team
sters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer
Ica is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act
3 By announcing overly broad rules regarding disclo
sure of employees names addresses or wage rates and
by threatening employees with discipline for violation of
" Ridgely Mfg Co supra International Business Machines Corp supra.
such rules the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act
4 A preponderance of the credible evidence does not
establish that the Respondent has otherwise violated the
Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer
tam unfair labor practices I shall recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrori and to take certain
affirmative actions designed to effectuate the purposes of
the Act
On the foregoing findings of fact conclusions of law
and the entire record I Issue the following recommend
ed15
ORDER
The Respondent Certified Grocers of Illinois Inc
Chicago Illinois its officers agents successors and as
signs shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Announcing or maintaining overly broad rules re
gardmg disclosure of employees names addresses or
wage rates and/or threatening employees with discipline
for violation of such rules
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc
mg employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them
by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to of
fectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post at its Central Avenue and Hodgkins facilities
and the plant known as the Bakery copies of the at
tached notice marked Appendix 16 Copies of the
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13 after being signed by the Respondents au
thorized representative shall be posted by the Respond
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered defaced or covered by
any other material
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint alle
gations not specifically found be and they are dismissed
15 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur
poses,
1s 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 Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation
al Labor Relations Board
CERTIFIED GROCERS 139
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
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or
dered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT announce or maintain overly broad
rules regarding disclosure of employees names address
es or wage rates and
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discipline for
violation of such rules
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
CERTIFIED GROCERS OF ILLINOIS INC