Food Giants of Texas

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 2, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 816 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Belden 's Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Food Giants of
Texas and Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO, Local
Union 408. Case 23-CA-3226
December 2, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On June 30, 1969, Trial Examiner Wellington A.
Gillis issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in
support of both the cross-exceptions and 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.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and orders that Belden's
Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Food Giants of Texas,
Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified.
1. Delete paragraph 1(b) and reletter the following
paragraph accordingly.
2. Delete the second indented paragraph of the
notice marked "Appendix."
'Inasmuch as the matter was neither alleged in the complaint nor fully
litigated at the hearing , we do not adopt the Trial Examiner ' s conclusion
that the discontinuance of the Christmas bonus was discriminatorily
motivated . Accordingly , we shall modify the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order to this extent For the applicable reasons set forth in
the majority opinions in the cases cited by our dissenting colleague, we
disagree with his position that the basic dispute in this case be left for
resolution by the contractual machinery Moreover , Respondent here does
not even raise the pending grievance under the contract as a defense
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting:
The Union has had a contractual bargaining
relationship with the Respondent for some 15 years.
Before filing the charges in this case it filed a
grievance under its existing contract protesting
Respondent's discontinuance of a Christmas bonus,
the very subject matter of the unfair labor practice
charges. By the time of the hearing herein, the
grievance had been processed to the point where a
panel of arbitrators had been requested, as to which
the contract provides, "the Arbitrator shall be
binding on all parties."
It thus appears that the parties have voluntarily
established a grievance-arbitration procedure for
resolving disputes such as this one. Concurrently
with this proceeding the Union availed itself of this
contractual remedy, and its grievance stands ready
to be arbitrated. For reasons heretofore expressed
by me,' I would require that the basic dispute in this
case be left for resolution within the framework of
the contractually provided machinery, and would
not now make an adjudication in this proceeding.
'See Cloverleaf Division of Adams Dairy Co. 147 NLRB 1410, Thor
Power Tool Company, 148 NLRB 1379, Unit Drop Forge Division Eaton
Yale & Towne Inc, 171 NLRB No 73
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WELLINGTON A GILLIS, Trial Examiner . This case was
heard by me on March 17 , 1969, at Houston, Texas, and
is based upon a charge filed on December 23, 1968, by
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , AFL-CIO, Local Union 408, hereinafter
referred to as the Union , upon a complaint , issued on
February 12, 1969, by the General Counsel for the
National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter referred to
as the Board, against Food Giants of Texas,' hereinafter
referred to as the Respondent or the Company , alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61
Stat. 136), and upon an answer timely filed by the
Respondent denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
At the hearing, all parties were represented by counsel,
and were afforded full opportunity to examine and
cross-examine witnesses , to introduce evidence pertinent to
the issues and to engage in oral argument Subsequent to
the close of the hearing , timely briefs were filed by
counsel for the General Counsel and for the Respondent
Upon the entire record in this case , and from my
observation of the witnesses, and their demeanor on the
witness stand and upon substantial , reliable evidence
"considered along with the consistency and inherent
probability of testimony " ( Universal Camera Corp. v.
N L R B , 340 U.S 474, 496), 1 make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Belden's Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Food Giants of
Texas, is a Texas corporation, having its principal office
'The correct name of the Respondent appears in the caption as amended
at the hearing
179 NLRB No. 142
FOOD GIANTS OF TEXAS 817
and place of business at Houston, Texas, where it is
engaged in the business of operating a chain of retail
supermarkets. During the 12-month period immediately
preceding the issuance of complaint, the Respondent
purchased goods and merchandise in excess of $50,000
from suppliers located within the State of Texas, which
goods and merchandise were purchased and shipped into
the State of Texas from points outside the State of Texas.
During the same period, the Respondent had retail sales
in excess of $500,000. The parties admit, and I find, that
the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Il. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties admit, and I find, that Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local Union 408, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Issues
1. Whether, in unilaterally eliminating a long-standing
practice of paying christmas bonuses to its meat
department employees contractually represented in an
appropriate unit by the Union, the Respondent engaged in
conduct constituting a refusal to bargain in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
2. Whether, in eliminating the payment of said
Christmas bonuses to its meat department employees
while continuing to pay Christmas bonuses to all other
nonrepresented employees, the Respondent did so based
upon an antiunion motive in violation of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act.
While these are the overall issues raised by the
pleadings, the basic question to be resolved is:
3. Whether, during the course of bargaining
negotiations between the Union and the Respondent, the
Union waived its right to bargain over the termination by
the Respondent of the payment of Christmas bonuses
Facts
A. Bargaining Negotiations
The Respondent, which operates a chain of seven retail
supermarkets, has, for some 15 years, had a collective
bargaining contract with the Union covering its 50 meat
department employees. Contract negotiations are
conducted between the Union's negotiating committee and
the Labor Committee of the Gulf Coast Retail Grocers
Association, which represents a large number of
employers, including the Respondent The practice has
been for the employers to execute their own contracts with
the Union based upon the negotiations On September 4,
1968, negotiations commenced looking toward a new
contract to replace the 3-year agreement scheduled to
expire on November I, 1968 2 Between this date and
November 6, when an agreement on the provisions of a
new contract was reached, the Union, represented by its
spokesman, George Elwood, and the Labor Committee of
the Association, represented by its spokesman, L. G.
Clinton, Jr., conducted some 13 bargaining sessions. The
Respondent was represented on the Labor Committee
during these negotiations by its vice president, Daniel
Kaim.
While throughout these negotiations many proposals
were made concerning major revisions in the existing
contract, and concessions were made by both parties, the
only matter with which this proceeding is concerned is the
discussion pertaining to Article V, entitled "Wages,"
subsection C, of the expiring contract,' which reads:
Any employee now receiving weekly or hourly rates
above the minimum wages specified herein shall not be
reduced by the present Employer
In this connection, the Union's contract proposal mailed
to the Respondent prior to the opening session contained
a requested change in article V, C, adding the language,
"working conditions or benefits." Thus, the Union's
revision reads:
Any employee now receiving weekly or hourly rates,
working conditions or benefits above the minimum
wages, working conditions or benefits specified herein
shall not be reduced by the present employer
At the September 4 session, in support of adding to the
old article V, C language to protect existing "working
conditions or benefits" above the minimum specified by
the contract, Elwood stated that the Union's concern was
that, with the large number of employers involved, each
employer perhaps had a different benefit incentive plan,
and also, that the Union was concerned with the fact that
many small employers occasionally made special
arrangements with particular employees Elwood then
made reference to a profit-sharing plan and an incentive
bonus plan used for a number of years by Rice Food
Markets, one of the employers involved, indicating that
this was the type thing that the Union wanted to protect.
Clinton, speaking for the Association, let it be known that
no change in the present V, C language was desired, that
they were not interested in preserving an employer's
practice in permitting an individual employee to go off
hunting every November 1.
At the next session at which V, C was discussed,
September 18, Elwood again went into the reasons for
desiring the addition of "working conditions or benefits,"
explaining that the Union was aware that many small
employers in the multi-employer situation made special
arrangements with individual employees at the time of
hire over and above existing contract requirements and
that it wished to retain these Elwood also registered
concern as to preserving the Rice Food Market type
profit-sharing plan and incentive bonus plan. Clinton
responded by indicating a desire to maintain the present
contract language
At the bargaining meeting on October 9, Elwood asked
the Association what its position was with respect to these
incentive payments and profit-sharing. Clinton responded
by saying that they would not agree to write into the
contract an agreement to continue these, that they wanted
the existing language The Union then agreed at this
session to strike from its proposed revision of article V, C
the phrase "working conditions," leaving in the word
"benefits "
At the October 16 session, Elwood again stated the
Union's position with respect to V, C, indicating that by
adding the words "benefits" it was interested in continuing
any benefit plans such as profit sharing or incentive bonus
'Unless otherwise specified, all dates refer to the year 1968
'Important as this matter is to the issue in this case, it is clear from the
record that during the negotiations, this provision was of relatively minor
significance and played little part in the overall discussions
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plans that might exist. Elwood made it clear that by
dropping that part of its proposal pertaining to "working
conditions" it no longer was attempting to preserve any
individual arrangements which might exist between an
employer and its employee.
Article V, C was next discussed at the bargaining
session on October 28, which was held at the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service office. Elwood
reiterated the Union's interest in continuing existing
"profit sharing and incentive bonus plans" and asked the
Association to reconsider its position on the requested
language change., Clinton refused to consider any, change
in V, C, saying that whether or not these employers that
had profit-sharing plans continued them would be at their
option.
The following day, October 29, the parties met again
under the auspices of a federal mediator, at which time
both submitted over-all counterproposals relating to items
remaining in dispute. With respect to article V, C, the
Union's revision read:
(C) Profit-Sharing plans where they exist will continue
during term of this agreement. Wages now paid above
the contract rate agreed upon not to be reduced.
The Association's new proposal reflected no change in the
existing language of article V, C. Other than brief
reference by the Union to profit-sharing plans, however,
there appears to have been little discussion on article V, C
on this date.'
Finally, on October 31, without further discussion on
the point, the Union agreed to accept the Association's
position to retain the old contract language concerning
article V, C. as far as the record discloses, this is the last
time that any discussion concerning article V, C occurred,
in or out of contract negotiations
Although the parties came to an agreement concerning
article V, C on October 31, putting an end to this matter,
other contract differences including a pension plan,
improvements in health and welfare, wages, and the
contract term , remained . On November 1, the Union went
on strike against J. W. Weingarten, Incorporated, one of
the large chain companies involved in the negotiations. On
this same day, the Respondent, along with a number of
other employers, reciprocated by engaging in a lockout of
its meat department employees., The strike and the
lockout ended late on November 6 when the parties
reached agreement on the contract. The Respondent
thereafter signed the agreement which was made
retroactive effective November 1.
'Elwood denied emphatically that he stated that "benefits " was intended
to apply to "bonuses" as distinguished from profit sharing and other
"incentive bonuses."
'In the one major area where there exists a factual testimonial dispute,
Clinton testified that on October 28 (which I find to have been October
29), in Elwood 's reiteration of his "benefits " language, Elwood said, "he
was talking about profit sharing, he was talking about bonuses or other
incentive pay." Clinton 's note, written on this occasion on the margin of
his copy of the Association 's latest proposal, might be considered as
supporting his testimony that Elwood talked about "bonuses " However,
Elwood emphatically denied at any time during the entire negotiations
mentioning "bonus" or "bonuses" without attaching the word "incentive "
It is entirely possible that in making abbreviated notes a phrase may be
shortened, or, in this case , the adjective left out . Thus, in the absence of
any other record evidence that in this connection Elwood discussed
anything other than "incentive bonuses," I find the fact to be as testified to
by Elwood.
'Other employees , including the grocery department employees, were not
locked out.
B. Christmas Bonuses
The record reveals that as far back as 1955 and
extending through Christmas 1967, the Respondent each
year a few days before Christmas paid to all of its
employees, including the grocery department employees
and the meat department employees, a Christmas bonus
equivalent to 1 week's pay. There is no evidence that
suggests that the payment of this Christmas bonus was at
any time mentioned in a union contract or during contract
negotiations, including those just completed. In December
1968, the Respondent followed its past practice of giving
Christmas bonuses to its grocery department employees,
who are not represented by a union, but, for the first time,
did not give a Christmas bonus to any of its meat
department employees. This decision was made without
consultation with the Union or, in fact, without
notification to the Union or advanced notification to the
meat department employees.
On December 14, Dale Hoagland, president of the
Local, having been made aware of this fact through
employee telephone calls to the union office, filed a
grievance with the Respondent concerning the nonpayment
of the Christmas bonus to the meat department
employees. After Al Cervanka, the meat department
supervisor refused to discuss the matter, Hoagland
arranged a meeting with Daniel Kaim, vice president of
the Respondent. Hoagland told Kaim that he thought that
the bonus had not been paid because of discriminatory
reasons. Kaim refused to talk about it, and referred him
to Clinton. The matter, at the time of hearing, was
awaiting arbitration 7
The record contains no direct evidence as to the
Respondent's motivation in eliminating its longstanding
practice of paying Christmas bonuses to its meat
department employees. The Respondent's vice president,
Kaim, the one person whose testimony could have
supplied the reason, refused to honor a subpoena and did
not testify in this proceeding Testimony was elicited by
the General Counsel, however, pertaining to two employee
conversations with lesser company officials
Thus, about 2 weeks before Christmas, and after it had
become apparent that the meat department employees
were not going to receive a Christmas bonus while the
remainder of the store employees were, meat department
employee Mickey Nichols, who has since left the
Respondent's employ, asked store manager Bobby
Atkinson as to the reason. Atkinson said he would check
with Mr. Kaim as to why the meat department employees
did not get a Christmas bonus. Later the same day,
Nichols inquired of Atkinson whether he found out the
reason, to which Atkinson replied, "no, that ... it would
be up to Mr Kaim if we got one." Nichols then asked
Atkinson for his opinion on the matter and was told that
"the only thing he would know of was because the
Grocery was nonunion or because of the strike."'
The only other record conversation having a bearing on
the matter concerns a question put to Supervisor
Cervanka a few days after Christmas by Ruby Lambert, a
meat department employee with 14 years tenure with the
Respondent. According to the uncontroverted and credible
'A 1967 grievance filed under the contract on behalf of Jean Kraatz, a
reinstated meat department employee who had not received a Christmas
bonus, was settled favorably to the employee
'As neither Atkinson nor Kaim testified in this proceeding , Nichols'
credited testimony stands unrefuted
,~OCD IANTS Ct . LAAS 19
testimony of Lambert.' on this occasion, in front of other
meat wrappers and butchers, Lambert asked Cervanka
why the meat department employees did not get a
Christmas bonus, that they were hurt about it Cervanka's
reply was, "well, don't blame me, . he (Cervanka)
didn't have anything to do with it, . .." that Mr. Daniels
and he both talked to Kaim about it, but that "Mr. Kaim
was so mad that he wouldn't listen to them."
Analysis and Conclusions
The General Counsel asserts that, at no time during the
contract negotiations was the subject of the Christmas
bonus raised by the parties and therefore the Respondent's
subsequent unilateral action in eliminating the
long-standing practice of paying Christmas bonuses to its
meat department employees without notification or
consultation with the Union constitutes a refusal to
bargain within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
The General Counsel further contends that, in eliminating
the payment of a Christmas bonus to the meat department
employees represented by the Union, while continuing to
pay the Christmas bonus to all of its other nonrepresented
employees, the Respondent did so for an antiunion reason,
thereby interfering with their Section 7 rights in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent rests its
defense in this matter upon its assertion that Christmas
bonuses, being a mandatory subject of bargaining, the
question of "benefits" raised by the Union during the
contract negotiations included "bonuses," which, in turn is
broad enough to include Christmas bonuses Thus, asserts
the Respondent, in refusing to accept modification of
article V, C as proposed by the Union, the Respondent
retained the unilateral right to continue or discontinue the
Christmas bonus, the Union having waived its right to
prior notification and consultation.
The crucial issue, it is apparent, involves the question
raised by the Respondent's defense as to whether the
Union, during the course of the contract negotiations,
waived its right to bargain on the subject of Christmas
bonuses. In this regard, it is undisputed that at no time
during the bargaining sessions was the subject of
Christmas bonuses raised by either party. The question
evolves then as to whether, in proposing a change in
article V, C by providing that "working conditions or
benefits," as well as wages, above the contract minimum
specified shall not be reduced by the employer, and
thereafter discussing the proposal, the Union was talking
about Christmas bonuses. Contrary to the assertion of
counsel for the Respondent at the hearing and in his brief,
it is clear from the credited testimony of Elwood that
throughout the negotiations the Union, in advancing its
proposed revision of article V, C, was concerned only with
profit-sharing plans and incentive bonus plans, particularly
the type in use at Rice Food Markets.10
The term "bonus," I find, was never discussed other
than in terms of incentive bonuses or incentive bonus
plans. It is not argued that the Respondent's Christmas
bonus, paid through the years to all of its employees, in
any way constitutes an incentive type bonus Furthermore,
had the parties, either one of them, truly considered that
they were talking about the Respondent's Christmas
bonus practice, it is inconceivable that the term
"Christmas bonus" would not at some point have been
used Having found, then, that Christmas bonuses were
not part of the "benefits" proposal by the Union,
discussed by the parties, and eventually discarded, it can
hardly be said that the right to continue or discontinue
Christmas bonuses, as distinguished from existing
profit-sharing plans or other incentive bonus plans, was
expressly reserved to the Respondent " Accordingly,
considering the fact that for 15 or more consecutive years
the Respondent has regularly paid a Christmas bonus to
its employees, said bonus being equal to I week of pay, I
find that the employees had a right to rely upon the
continuation of these bonuses as part of their wages. As
such, they constitute a mandatory subject of bargaining
Thus, in unilaterally eliminating the payment of the 1968
Christmas bonuses to its employees in the appropriate unit
without consulting the Union, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.'
As to the other portion of the General Counsel's
allegation, namely, that the Respondent was antiunion
motivated in eliminating the Christmas bonus, I also find
merit. Even assuming, contrary to the fact, that the
Respondent had the right to unilaterally discontinue its
practice of giving unit employees a Christmas bonus, the
question is completely unanswered in the record as to the
reason for the decision. The record reveals only that
shortly after the strike by, and lockout of, the meat
department employees, the Respondent took the action.
While certainly not conclusive on the subject, Atkinson's
opinion reply to Nichols in December that "the only thing
he would know of was because the Grocery (department)
was nonunion or because of the strike," coupled with
Cervanka's subsequent indication to Lambert that Kaim
was too mad to discuss it, suggest an inference of
discrimination Considering the 15-year history of paying
Christmas bonuses to all of its employees, I find the
Respondent's sudden elimination of such bonuses to its
union employees following the strike and lockout to
warrant an inference of discriminatory motivation 13
The General Counsel having made a prima facie case
on this point, it is incumbent upon the Respondent to
come forward with the evidence to rebut the inference
This the Respondent has not done, for, in keeping Kaim
off the stand, it has offered no explanation of any sort for
its decision to discontinue the bonus to the unit employees
while continuing to pay it to the nonrepresented
employees. Thus, under the circumstances, in the absence
of a sound reason for showing disparate treatment of its
union and nonunion employees, I find the action to have
been discriminatorily motivated, and that the Respondent
thereby restrained and coerced its employees within the
meaning of section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
'Cervanka did not testify
10In fact, counsel for the Respondent in his brief was less than honest in
stating that Elwood admitted in his testimony that during the negotiations
Clinton told the Union that the employers would have the option of
continuing or discontinuing "bonuses " Notwithstanding Clinton's
cross-examination of Elwood , in each portion of the transcript referred to
by Clinton, Elwood's testimony mentions profit sharing and incentive
bonus plans only, not "bonuses."
"General Telephone Co v NLRB B. 337 F 2d 452 (C A 5)
"See Gravenslund Operating Company d/b/a Washington Hardware
and Furniture Co , 168 NLRB No 72, and cases cited therein
"in drawing this inference, contrary to the General Counsel's assertion,
I do not rely upon the existence of a number of grievances filed by the
Union shortly after the strike, all but one of which were taken care of by
the Respondent within a week
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(I) and (5) of the Act, it is recommended that it cease
and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that the Respondent, in unilaterally
eliminating a long standing practice of paying Christmas
bonuses to its meat department employees, engaged in
conduct constituting a refusal to bargain in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, it is recommended that the
Respondent make its meat department employees whole
for the monetary loss suffered by them as a result of the
unlawful withholding of the 1968 Christmas bonus, the
amount of loss to be determined by the formula used in
making bonus payments in previous years, with interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum.' 4
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Belden's Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Food Giants of
Texas is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union 408, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. All meat department employees employed by the
Respondent in its retail supermarket stores in Harris
County, Texas, excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors as
defined in the act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. By unilaterally eliminating the payment of Christmas
bonuses in 1968 to its meat department employees, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of
the Act.
5. By eliminating said Christmas bonuses in 1968 to
meat department employees represented by the Union,
while continuing to pay Christmas bonuses to all other
nonrepresented employees, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Other than as found, the Respondent has committed
no violations of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
it is recommended that the Respondent, Belden's
"Isis Tlumbing & Heating Co, Inc, 138 NLRB 716, Zelrich Company,
144 NLRB 1581, enfd 344 F 2d 1011 (C A 5)
Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Food Giants of Texas, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall.
I Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union with
respect to Christmas bonuses or any other term or
condition of employment by unilaterally effectuating
changes in bonus payments or any term or condition of
employment of its employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit in derogation of the rights of the Union or
any other labor organization which employees may select
as their exclusive bargaining representative
(b) Discouraging membership in the Union or in any
other labor organization of its employees by
discriminating with regard to a Christmas bonus or any
other term or condition of employment
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with the
rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Pay to its meat department employees in the
appropriate unit the amounts due them for the 1968
Christmas bonus, to be computed in the manner set forth
above in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports and all other
records necessary to analyze the amounts due under the
terms of this Recommended Order
(c) Post in conspicuous places at all of its stores located
in Harris County, Texas, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director
for Region 23, shall, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of the Respondent be posted by
it, as aforesaid, immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith'"
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of the 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 the Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
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
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that-
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
FOOD GIANTS OF TEXAS
North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union 408, by
unilaterally eliminating Christmas bonuses or
effectuating changes in any other terms or conditions of
employment of any meat department employee in the
appropriate bargaining unit in derogation of the rights
of the Union.
WE WILL NOT discriminate with respect to Christmas
bonus payments or any other term or condition of
employment to encourage or discourage membership in
any labor organization.
WE WILL NOT engage in any like or related conduct
which interferes with, restrains, or coerces you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you in Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL pay the 1968 Christmas bonuses to our
employees in the appropriate unit, with interest thereon
at the rate of 6 percent per annum. The appropriate
unit is:
All meat department employees employed by the
Respondent in its retail supermarket stores in Harris
821
County, Texas, excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors
as defined in the Act
BELDEN S
SUPERMARKET, INC.,
D/B/A FOOD GIANTS OF
TEXAS
(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, 6617 Federal
Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002,
Telephone 713-226-4296.