Heck'S, Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1989

293 N.L.R.B. 1111 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

HECK S INC 1111
Heck 's, Inc and United Food and Commercial
Workers Union , Local 23, AFL-CIO-CLC and
United Food and Commercial Workers Interna-
tional Union, Local 1059 , AFL-CIO-CLC
Cases 6-CA- 16888 , 6-CA-17110, and 6-CA-
16888-2 (formerly 9-CA-20647)
May 18, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS
Upon charges filed by United Food and Com-
mercial Workers Union, Local 23, AFL-CIO-CLC
(Local 23) on November 7, 1983, and February 13,
1984, and by United Food and Commercial Work-
ers International Union, Local 1059, AFL-CIO-
CLC (Local 1059) on February 13, 1984, the Gen-
eral Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board issued an order consolidating cases, and a
consolidated amended complaint and notice of
hearing on April 17, 1984 The complaint alleges
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by engaging in surveillance of its employees'
union activity, and Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act by denying access to its Wheeling, West Vir
ginia facility to designated collective-bargaining
agents of Local 23, by unilaterally issuing an em-
ployee handbook entitled "AN INFORMATION
GUIDE FOR OUR ASSOCIATES" (i e, employ-
ees) to all of its employees, including those at its
Wheeling and Nitro, West Virginia facilities in
volved in the instant case , by promulgating, main
taining in effect, and requiring employees to prom
ise in writing to be bound by provisions in the em
ployee handbook requesting employees not to dis-
cuss their salaries with other employees, advising
employees that the Respondent does not want any
of its employees to be represented by a union and
that there is no need for a union or any other paid
intermediary to stand between the employees and
the Company, encouraging employees to report
grievances directly to the store manager , and re-
serving to the Respondent the right to make
changes in the handbook's guidelines or their appli
cation as the Respondent deems appropriate The
Respondent filed a timely answer admitting in part
and denying in part the allegations of the com-
plaint
On June 20, 1984, the General Counsel, Local
23, Local 1059, and the Respondent filed a stipula-
tion of facts and joint motion to transfer proceed
ings directly to the Board The parties waived a
hearing and the issuance of a decision by an admin
istrative law judge and indicated their desire to
submit the case directly to the Board for findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and a decision The
parties also agreed that the charges, complaints, an
swers to complaints, and the stipulation of facts
would constitute the entire record before the
Board
On September 13, 1984, the Board issued an
order granting the parties' motion, approving the
stipulation, and transferring the proceedings to the
Board Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Respondent filed briefs
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
On the entire record and the briefs, the Board
makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a West Virginia corporation
with an office and place of business in Wheeling,
West Virginia, and with facilities located in various
States of the United States, including the States of
West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ten
nessee , Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and North
Carolina, is engaged in the operation of retail de-
partment stores and a warehouse for the wholesale
distribution of consumer goods for sale at its retail
stores The only facilities involved in the instant
proceeding are the Respondent's Warwood Shop-
ping Plaza , Wheeling, West Virginia location, and
the Respondent's warehouse located in Nitro, West
Virginia During the 12 month period ending
March 31, 1984, a representative period, the Re-
spondent, in the course and conduct of its above
described operations, derived gross revenues in
excess of $500,000 During the same 12-month
period, the Respondent purchased and received at
its Wheeling facility products, goods, and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
outside the State of West Virginia During the
same 12-month period, the Respondent purchased
and received at its Nitro warehouse products,
goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from points outside the State of West Vir
ginia We find that the Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that Local 23 and
Local 1059 are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
II ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Stipulated Facts
1 The following employees of the Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
293 NLRB No 132
1112 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act
All full-time and part-time selling and non sell-
ing employees employed by the Employer in
the following stores (Local 1059) Store #5,
Ashland, Kentucky, Store #13, Russell, KY,
Store #21, Athens, Ohio, Store #25, Circle
ville, Ohio, Store #31, Marietta, Ohio, (Local
1407) Store #8, Wheeling, West Virginia,
Store #12, Point Pleasant, West Virginia, and
Store #48, Prestonburg, Kentucky, but exclud
ing the store manager, assistant store manager,
department heads, casual employees, one (1)
confidential employee per store, and all profes
sional employees, guards and supervisory em
ployees as defined in the Act
2 At all times material, various local unions of
the United Food and Commercial Workers Union,
AFL-CIO-CLC, including Local 23 at the Re
spondent's Wheeling facility (Local 23 or the
Union), have been the designated exclusive collec
tive bargaining representatives of the above unit
and, since about August 2, 1982, the Union has
been recognized as such representative by the Re-
spondent Such recognition has been embodied in a
collective-bargaining agreement , which was effec-
tive by its terms for the period August 1, 1982, to
August 1, 1985
3 About March 1, 1983, Local Unions 1407, 590,
and 424 of the United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union merged to form
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 23,
AFL-CIO-CLC This merger became effective
after a majority vote of members of each local and
the unanimous recommendation by the board of
Locals 590, 1407, and 424 and the United Food and
Commercial Workers International President Wil-
liam H Wynn Local 1407 was signatory to the
collective-bargaining agreement referred to above
4 At all times material, the Union, by virtue of
Section 9(a) of the Act, has been and is the exclu-
sive representative of the above unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment and other
terms and conditions of employment
5 At all times material , Jack Lewis, Gary Best,
and Jerry Isaacs have been Local 23's designated
agents for the purposes of collective bargaining
with the Respondent
6 About October 28, 1983 (about 11 am), Gary
Best and Jerry Isaacs entered the Respondent's
Wheeling, West Virginia facility There were ap
proximately 20 employees working, most of whom
were in Halloween costumes, there were no cus-
tomers in the store at this time Best and Isaacs
went immediately to the front store office, an-
nounced their presence, and asked for Store Man-
ager Joseph George 1 They were told that George
was in his office in the "back storeroom " Best and
Isaacs went directly to the back storeroom office
without any discussions with any of the employees
on the selling floor Isaacs, who had served as the
Union's business representative for the Wheeling
facility for the previous year, introduced Best as
his replacement and asked George's permission to
introduce Best to the Respondent's employees in
the Wheeling store Isaacs told George that he
would not disrupt any working employees, that he
just wanted to walk around the store and introduce
Best to employees, and that he would not take
more than a minute with each employee George
replied "if you want to call a meeting outside the
store, that's fine, but you re not talking to the em
ployees on my time" Isaacs replied that he felt
they had a right to speak to the employees and it
was not their intention to hold up or disrupt the
work in any fashion-all they wanted to do was in-
troduce Best as the new business agent to the em-
ployees Best presented a copy of the collective
bargaining agreement to George and directed his
attention to article III, section B of the agreement,
which reads as follows
B The Manager of the store and/or company
shall grant any accredited union official access
to the store for the purposes of satisfying
themselves that the terms of this Agreement
are being complied with The Company shall
make available to Union representative a list of
the time records, schedules and the employee's
personnel file, excluding confidential medical
matters
George repeated that he would not allow the
union representatives to speak to any of the em
ployees in the store Isaacs and Best then left
George's office and walked through the storeroom
towards the exit Best and Isaacs stopped at the
break room, but before they could introduce them
selves to the employees there, George approached
them and told them that they were not permitted
in the break room to speak to any of his employ
ees Isaacs and Best left the storeroom area, as they
reached the selling floor, they were approached by
employee Theresa Connelly Connelly asked Isaacs
and Best when they were going to have a union
meeting George, who was following approximate-
ly 1 foot behind Isaacs and Best, walked between
' The parties stipulated that Wheeling Store Manager Joseph George
Wheeling Assistant Store Manager Michael Savarino and the Respond
ent s personnel director James Doss were at all times material supervi
sors of the Respondent within the meaning of Sec 2 ( 11) of the Act and
agents of the Respondent within the meaning of Sec 2(13) of the Act
HECK S INC 1113
Connelly, Best, and Isaacs and asked Connelly
whether she did not have some work to do She
immediately left George stated that he did not
want Isaacs and Best speaking to his people on his
time Isaacs told him that if he felt that way, per-
haps they should call the Respondent's main office
in Charleston and speak to James Doss, personnel
director George agreed and the three returned to
George's office where George handed Isaacs the
phone and told him to call When Isaacs told
George he did not have the number, George dialed
a telephone number and spoke to James Doss
After introducing himself to Doss, George said that
he had a couple of guys from the Union who
wanted to talk to his people in the store on his
time After several minutes of silence on George's
end, he handed the telephone to Isaacs Isaacs,
speaking to Doss, informed him that Best and he
had come to the facility simply to introduce Best
to the employees, that the Union had no intention
or desire to disrupt the work force in any manner,
and that the introductions would probably take less
than 1 minute per employee After Isaacs explained
his purpose, Doss asked to have the phone re-
turned to George After an apparent conversation
between George and Isaacs,2 George told Isaacs
and Best to leave Isaacs and Best left the store
room area followed by George who was approxi-
mately 2 to 3 feet behind them As they went
through the store, they introduced themselves to
various employees In each instance, George imme
diately ordered the employees to do various tasks
After approximately 7 or 8 minutes, Best and
Isaacs left the store George followed them to the
store's entrance
7 About January 26, 1984, at approximately 6 30
p in , Gary Best and Local 23 Business Agent Jack
Lewis went to the Respondent's Wheeling, West
Virginia facility They saw Union Steward Linda
Bell, who was working the front register, and
asked her when she was going on her break so
they could discuss with her various health and wel-
fare forms for Bell to distribute to the employees
The store manager was not present She told them
that she would be on her break in about 10 min-
utes Assistant Store Manager Mike Savarino was
present in the front of the store when Lewis and
Best entered Lewis and Best introduced them
selves to Savarino and asked him if they could
speak to Bell when she went on break Savanno
made no comment or response Approximately 5
minutes after Lewis and Best spoke to Savanno,
Bell started on her break As she left the register
2 It appears from the context that this reference to Isaacs in the stipu
laced facts is erroneous and that this apparent conversation was be
tween George and Doss on the telephone
and walked back to the break room, Lewis and
Best started to follow her Savarino stopped Lewis
and Best from following Bell to the rear of the
store At the point when Lewis and Best were
stopped, they were approximately 20 feet from the
front registers Savarino asked where they were
going Best said they were going to the break room
to speak with Bell Savarino stated, "You're not al
lowed to talk to her [Bell] in the store, you'll have
to go outside "
Best stated that he felt he had a right to be in the
store in light of the parties' collective-bargaining
agreement Lewis and Best continued to walk
toward the break room When Lewis and Best ar
rived in the break room, Bell was present As the
three of them began to speak, Savarino walked into
the break room He told both Lewis and Best that
they had to leave, that "you're not allowed in the
break room " Savarino added that he would call
the police if Lewis and Best both did not leave im-
mediately Lewis and Best both told him to "go
ahead, if he felt he had to " Savarino repeated sev
era] times that both Best and Lewis had no right to
be there and that they had to leave Best and
Lewis both responded that they had a contractual
right to be present in the store and if Savarino felt
he had to call the police, he should do so The par-
ties' conversation lasted approximately 5 minutes,
at which point Best and Lewis then proceeded to
speak to Bell with respect to the health and wel-
fare forms Savarino continued to stand in the
break room Best turned to Savarino and asked him
to leave Savarino said, "I'm permitted back here,
but you are not " Best continued to talk to Bell,
and Savarino remained in the break room After a
couple of minutes, Best told Bell to return to the
sales floor, and she did Lewis and Best remained
for several minutes, then left the break room and
walked through the storeroom area and out onto
the selling floor Savarino followed them, remain
ing approximately a foot or two away Bell re
turned to her register and began work as her break
was over Best and Lewis went past the registers
and stopped near the front exit of the store Best
then said to Savarino that the Union had a contract
and that he felt it was their contractual right to
visit the store and to speak to employees Savanno
made no response Lewis and Best then walked
through the store aisles, followed closely by Savar-
ino The approximately seven employees working
in the store that evening observed Savarino follow-
ing Best and Lewis through the store, stopping
Lewis and Best initially from going into the break
room, and following them into the break room
Best and Lewis then left the store and waited
until its closing, about 9 p in, to meet with Bell
1114 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9 Article III of the parties' collective bargaining
agreement, entitled Dispute Procedure," provides,
inter alia
A The Union shall have the right to desig-
nate one store steward per store and shall
submit in writing to the Store Manager the
name of such employee within ten (10) work-
ing days of his official designation by the
Union The store steward shall be selected
from the ranks of full-time employees and shall
have storewide super seniority for the purpose
of layoff and recall The steward shall receive
one (1) day off each year, with pay by the
Employer, to attend the Local Union Stew
ards' Seminar
B The Manager of the store and/or compa-
ny shall grant to any accredited Union Official
access to the store for the purpose of satisfying
themselves that the terms of this Agreement
are being complied with The Company shall
make available to Union representative a list of
the time records, schedules and the employee's
personnel file, excluding confidential medical
matters
C Should any difference, disputes, griev-
ances or complaints arise over the interpreta-
tion or application of the contents of the
Agreement, there shall be an earnest effort on
the part of both parties to settle such prompt
ly, through the following steps [the contract
then describes a four-step grievance resolution
procedure, culminating in arbitration ]
No grievance has been filed by the Union con
cerning the Respondent's refusal to allow it to
speak to employees covered by it on the Respond-
ent's premises at any time or any place The Re-
spondent initially indicated it was unwilling to
waive any time limits within the grievance proce-
dure should the Union decide to initiate a griev-
ance with respect to the above matters and others,
as discussed infra Subsequent to the issuance of the
complaints , and the consolidated amended com
plaint, the Respondent has taken the position that
the parties ' collective bargaining agreement, which
was in effect at all times material , provides for the
settlement of all disputes through its grievance and
arbitration procedure in article III, and that the
Respondent is willing and able to resolve all the
disputes discussed in this stipulation through the
grievance and arbitration procedure
9 On December 30, 1983 , the Respondent issued
a booklet entitled "AN INFORMATION GUIDE
FOR OUR ASSOCIATES" to all its employees at
all its facilities , both unionized and nonunionized
The Respondent did not bargain with the Union
concerning the implementation of the booklet at its the parties stipulation substitutes the term employees
unionized facilities Since about December 30,
1983, the Respondent has maintained in effect, at
all of its locations, all the provisions contained in
the booklet Local 23 informed the Respondent in
writing on February 14, 1984, and orally (by Gary
Best) on February 16, 1984, that it objected to the
unilateral implementation of the booklet The book-
let contains, inter alia, the following provisions
i Wages
The wage paid each Employee3 is consid-
ered confidential information Therefore your
company requests you regard your wage as
confidential and do not discuss your salary ar-
rangements with any other Employee
ii Union Policy
As a Company, we recognize the right of
each individual Employee, their freedom of
choice, their individuality and their needs as a
worker and a fellow human being For these
reasons and others, we do not want any of our
Employees to be represented by a Union
All members of Heck's management believe
in an open line of communication with our
Employees When you thoroughly understand
Heck's liberal benefit programs, the desire to
assist you in your job progress and willingness
to discuss your job-related problems, you
surely will agree there is no need for a union
or any other paid intermediary to stand be
tween you and your company
in Associate Relations
There are times in any organization when
friction may occur between an Employee and
a supervisor While those in a supervisory po-
sition are charged with the responsibility of
operating the store, the company realizes there
may be an occasion when an Employee feels
he/she has a legitimate grievance
For this reason, we have at the Employee's
disposal form G-100 In an event an Employee
feels he/she has a legitimate grievance, the
Employee is encouraged to report the griev
ance to the store manager The G-100 form
may be obtained from the Employee lounge
The [Respondent] reserves the right to make
changes in the handbook's guidelines or their
application as it deems appropriate
The last page of the handbook is a perforated
page entitled "Receipt for Associate Handbook,"
which is placed in the employee's personnel file
This perforated page, which all the Respondent's
9 The booklet itself refers to employees as associates throughout but
HECK S INC 1115
employees are requested to sign and date, contains
the following statement
I have received my copy of the Associate
Handbook I agree to read and keep my hand-
book for future reference and observe and be
bound by present and future company person-
nel policies and rules outlined in this manual I
further understand that this handbook is in
tended as a guide for personnel policies, bene-
fits and general information and that these
guidelines should not be construed as a con-
tract
I understand the company reserves the right
to make changes in the guidelines or their ap
plication as it deems appropriate
10 The Respondent, in the handbook described
above in paragraph 9, reserves the right to make
changes in the handbook without prior notice to
the Union and without having to afford it as exclu-
sive bargaining representative an opportunity to ne-
gotiate and bargain over any changes
11 The Respondent established the grievance
procedure as described above in paragraph 9(111) in
addition to, and inconsistent with, the "dispute"
procedure set forth in article III of the collective-
bargaining agreement in effect between the Re-
spondent and the Union
12 The grievance procedure described above in
paragraph 9(iii) does not refer to, or provide the
Union an opportunity to participate in, the griev
ance procedure
The parties stipulated that the Respondent en-
gaged in the acts and conduct described above in
paragraph 9 without prior notice to the Union and
without having afforded the Union an opportunity
to negotiate and bargain as the exclusive represent-
ative of the Respondents employees with respect
to such acts and conduct and the effects of such
acts and conduct
The parties also stipulated that by the acts and
conduct described above in paragraphs 6 and 7, the
Respondent engaged in surveillance of its employ
ees' union activities and denied Gary Best, Jerry
Isaacs , and Jack Lewis access to its Wheeling facil-
ity premises
B Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that the Respond-
ent's denial of access to the Union at its Wheeling
facility about October 28, 1983, and January 26,
1984, constituted conduct violative of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act In this regard, the Gen-
eral Counsel asserts that the Union's reasons for
seeking access to the Wheeling facility were for the
purposes of administering its collective-bargaining
agreement with the Respondent, and that the
Union's actions were in accordance with the proce-
dures set forth in the collective-bargaining agree-
ment The General Counsel additionally asserts
that the Respondent's denial of access to the union
representatives at its Wheeling facility constituted
the imposition of a new condition, about which the
Respondent had not bargained with the Union, re
sulting in a substantial change in the parties' past
practice under the collective-bargaining agreement
The General Counsel also contends that the Re
spondent's surveillance of its employees' union ac
tivities at the Respondent's Wheeling facility about
October 28, 1983, and January 26, 1984, constituted
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
Additionally, the General Counsel alleges that
the Respondent's unilateral implementation of its
"INFORMATION GUIDE FOR ASSOCIATES"
constituted conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act at the Respondent's unionized
Wheeling facility, inasmuch as the employee hand-
book in question promulgated and put into effect
rules and regulations affecting terms and conditions
of employment, without affording the Union an op-
portunity to bargain about these matters Further-
more, the General Counsel contends that the Re
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act at
both its unionized Wheeling facility and nonunion-
ized Nitro facility by requesting employees to sign
a statement expressly agreeing to observe and be
bound by present and future company policies and
rules outlined in the employee handbook, including
the Respondent's "Union Policy" that it does not
want any of its employees to be represented by a
union, and that there is no need for a union or any
other paid intermediary to `stand between" the
employees and the Respondent The General
Counsel further asserts that the Respondent's pro-
mulgation of its Union Policy," even in the ab-
sence of a request that employees subscribe to it by
signing their name, constitutes conduct violative of
Section 8(a)(1) at both the unionized Wheeling fa-
cility and the nonunionized Nitro facility 4
The General Counsel also contends that the As-
sociate Relations" section in the employee hand-
book is tantamount to a grievance procedure sepa
rate and distinct from the grievance procedure set
forth in the collective-bargaining agreement, that it
was unilaterally implemented, that it precludes par
ticipation by the Union, and that it was designed to
4 In addition to contending that the Respondents conduct in these
latter two instances violates Sec 8 (a)(1) at both facilities the General
Counsel also contends that in both instances it violates Sec 8 (a)(5) at the
Wheeling facility because it has a tendency to undermine the status of
the Union as the designated collective bargaining agent for the employees
at that facility
1116 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
undermine the status of the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative at the Wheeling facility,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
Additionally, the General Counsel argues that
the Respondents reservation, in the employee
handbook, of "the right to make changes in the
guidelines or their application as appropriate" is an
expression of the Respondent's belief that it alone
may, without consultation with the Union, change
the policies in the booklet (some of which cover
mandatory subjects of bargaining and subjects cov-
ered in the parties' collective-bargaining agree-
ment), and that this conduct constitutes, in the
General Counsel's view, "a rejection of the funda
mental principles of good faith collective bargain
ing," in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act at the unionized Wheeling facility
Finally, the General Counsel alleges that the Re
spondent's request (in the employee handbook) that
employees not discuss their wages with each other,
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) at both the
unionized and nonunionized locations involved in
this case, and also a violation of Section 8(a)(5) at
the unionized location
The Respondent contends that the provisions in
the collective bargaining agreement that permit
union officials to have access to the Respondent's
facilities for the purpose of satisfying themselves
that the terms of the collective-bargaining agree
ment are being complied with do not grant union
officials "the right to wander around the store and
introduce new business agents to the employees or
to take up employees' time other than to satisfy
themselves that the terms of the Agreement are
being complied with The Respondent takes the
position that the dispute over denial of access
should have been submitted to the grievance proce-
dure set forth in the collective bargaining agree
ment, rather than made the subject of an unfair
labor practice allegation The Respondent asserts
that the dispute over the instant denial of access to
union officials involves a question of interpretation
of the scope of the access provision in the collec
tive-bargaining agreement, and that the Board
should therefore defer consideration of this dispute
to the gnevance-arbitration provisions of the col
lective-bargaining agreement
The Respondent also contends that the question
of whether employees would reasonably construe
employee handbook provisions stating that the Re-
spondent does not want a union, in conjunction
with the request that the employees themselves do
not want a union, is an issue that should be de-
ferred to the contractual grievance and arbitration
procedure
In response, the General Counsel argues that de
ferral here is inappropriate, because it would not
resolve the alleged unfair labor practices at the
nonunionized Nitro facility, inasmuch as the unfair
labor practice allegations involving the employee
handbook involve both the Wheeling and Nitro fa-
cilities Additionally, the General Counsel argues
that the handbook allegations are not severable
from the denial of access allegations and that all
the unfair labor practice allegations in the instant
case must be resolved in the instant proceeding
The General Counsel also contends that the hand-
book provisions alleged to be violative of the Act,
together with the Respondent's acts of surveillance
and denial of access to union representatives, con
stitute "a rejection of the fundamental principles of
good faith bargaining and demonstrates Respond
ent's attempts to undermine the Union " Accord-
ingly, the General Counsel asserts that deferral is
not appropriate under the standard set forth in
United Technologies Corp, 268 NLRB 557, 560
(1984) (the Board will not defer when the respond-
ent's conduct constitutes a rejection of the princi
ples of collective bargaining)
C Discussion
1 Deferral
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that
certain conduct of the Respondent was unlawful at
both of the Respondent's facilities involved in this
case its unionized retail store in Wheeling and its
nonunionized warehouse in Nitro Thus, only some
of the issues before us could be deferred to the
contractual "Dispute Procedure" in effect at the
Wheeling location Because we must determine at
least a part of the instant dispute, there is no com-
pelling reason for deferring other aspects of the
dispute to the grievance arbitration machinery at
Wheeling, and we decline to do so See S Q I
Roofing, 271 NLRB 1 fn 3 (1984) Sheet Metal
Workers Local 17 (George Koch Sons), 199 NLRB
166, 168 (1972), enfd mem 85 LRRM 2548 (1st
Cir 1973) 5
2 Denial of access
The Respondent has stipulated that, by the con-
duct of Wheeling Store Manager Joseph George
and Assistant Store Manager Mike Savarino about
October 28, 1983, and January 26, 1984, respective
ly, the Respondent denied the union representatives
access to the Respondent's Wheeling facility
5 Member Cracraft would defer the access allegations to the parties
grievance arbitration process However she agrees with her colleagues
that the handbook promulgation allegations should not be deferred to ar
bitration
HECK S INC
We note at the outset that the instant collective-
bargaining agreement provides that accredited
union officials shall be granted access to the store
for the purpose of satisfying themselves that the
terms of the agreement are being complied with
The Union sought access to the Wheeling facility
for the purposes of introducing a new union repre
sentative to the employees, and discussing with the
union steward various health and welfare forms
that the steward would in turn provide to the em-
ployees These purposes are clearly consistent with
the contractual provision granting the Union access
to the Respondent's facilities-to monitor ongoing
compliance with the collective-bargaining agree
ment The collective-bargaining agreement re-
quires, for example, that employees become mem-
bers of the Union 31 days after starting work and
that the Employer provide the Union with a list of
new employees each month It also provides for
employer contributions to a health and welfare
plan for employees The introduction of the new
union representative to the employees and the dis-
cussion of health and welfare claim forms with the
steward have clear relevance to the Union's ability
to determine whether the Respondent is complying
with these contractual provisions
Further, there is no evidence that compliance
with the access provision would have disrupted or
impeded Respondent's operations On both occa-
sions in question, the union representatives made
their presence known to the store manager or his
assistant , and asked for permission to conduct the
above-described business In the first instance,
when the union representatives were denied per-
mission to briefly introduce the new representative
to the employees, there were no customers in the
store and at least some of the employees were al
ready assembled in the break room On the second
occasion, when the union representatives were
denied permission to discuss health and welfare
forms with the union steward, the union represent-
atives had waited until the steward was on her
breaktime, in the break room, before beginning
their discussion with her 6 In neither instance did
the Respondent's officials deny access on the
grounds that the stated purposes for the visits were
beyond the scope of the access provision Instead,
the Respondent's managers ignored the existence of
an access provision despite the Union's express in-
vocation of it and told the union representatives
that they were not permitted to speak to any em-
8 Thus in finding that the purposes and conduct of the union repre
sentatives in visiting the store were in accord with the instant contractual
access provision we do not suggest that the provision grants union repre
sentatives permission to circulate through a facility (or as the Respond
ent fears wander around the store ) in a way that interferes with the
conduct of the Respondent s business
1117
ployees within the store, including employees on
their breaktime in the break room They also indi-
cated that if the agents wanted to speak to the em-
ployees or the union steward, they could do so
only "outside the store "
In these circumstances, we find that the Union
properly requested reasonable access to the Re-
spondent's facility in accordance with the express
provision of the collective bargaining agreement
and that the Respondent has violated the Act as al-
leged by refusing to grant that access to its Wheel
ing store 7
3 Surveillance
The Respondent has stipulated that, by the con-
duct of Wheeling Store Manager George and As-
sistant Store Manager Savarino, during the denials
of access described above, the Respondent engaged
in surveillance of its employees' union activities In
its brief, the Respondent does not dispute the alle-
gation that this surveillance of employee union ac
tivity was unlawful 8
In the October incident, the union representa-
tives were denied permission to introduce the new
representative to the employees in the store As the
union representatives were leaving the store, greet
ing employees on their way out, they were fol-
lowed very closely-about 2 or 3 feet behind-by
Store Manager George
In the January 1984 incident, the union repre-
sentatives were denied permission to discuss health
and welfare procedures with the union steward in
the store As the union representatives attempted to
discuss these matters with the union steward on her
breaktime, in the break room, Assistant Store Man-
ager Savanno stationed himself in the break room,
repeatedly told the union representatives that they
had no right to be in the store, that they would
have to leave immediately, and that he would call
the police if they did not do so After the union
representatives refused to leave, and as they contin-
ued to attempt to discuss health and welfare mat-
ters with the union steward, Savarino continued to
stand in the break room After a few more minutes,
the union representatives discontinued their discus-
sion with the steward, and began to leave the store
Savarino followed closely behind them-about 1 or
2 feet away-until they left the store
7 See Parknew Furniture Mfg Co 284 NLRB 947 fn 2 and cases cited
therein (July 13 1987) see also Campo Slacks 250 NLRB 420 429
(1980) enfd mem 659 F 2d 1069 (3d Cir 1981)
8 The Respondents brief addresses only the questions of whether the
allegedly unlawful denial of access and certain allegedly unlawful provi
sions in the employee handbook should be deferred to the contractual
grievance arbitration procedure
1118 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In both instances, therefore, the Respondent en-
gaged in extraordinarily close, pronounced, and
(under the circumstances) unjustified scrutiny of its
employees in their attempts to speak with their
union representatives, who, as found above, were
properly in the Respondent's store on legitimate
union business 9 We find that the Respondent's
conduct in this regard had a tendency to interfere
with and restrain its employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act, and thus
constitutes unlawful surveillance of employee union
activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 10
4 Unilateral issuance of and reservation of the
right to make changes in the
"INFORMATION GUIDE FOR
ASSOCIATES"
On December 30, 1983, the Respondent issued a
booklet entitled "AN INFORMATION GUIDE
FOR OUR ASSOCIATES" 1 I to all of its employ-
ees, including those at the Wheeling (unionized)
and Nitro (nonunionized) facilities involved in the
instant case The Respondent has stipulated that it
issued the handbook, and thereafter maintained it in
effect, without giving the Union prior notice or op-
portunity to bargain about it Moreover, the Re-
spondent expressly reserves the right to make
changes in the handbook without giving the Union
prior notice or opportunity to bargain about such
changes Also, all employees are requested to sign
a statement, which is to be retained in their person-
nel file, acknowledging their receipt of the hand-
book, and agreeing to obey and be bound by the
present and future personnel policies and rules con-
tained in the handbook
In its brief, the Respondent does not dispute the
allegations that the unilateral issuance of, and the
reservation of the right to make unilateral changes
in, the employee handbook constitutes unlawful ac-
tivity at the Wheeling facility
The "INFORMATION GUIDE FOR OUR
ASSOCIATES" contains information, policies,
9 The stipulated facts pertaining to these allegations show that as
George closely followed the union representatives as they greeted em
ployees on their way out of the store he would approach each employee
being greeted and order him or her to do various tasks In finding that
George engaged in unjustified scrutiny we do not rely on his issuance of
such orders to the employees Thus we do not imply that employers are
generally prohibited from directing their employees to return to work
during the course of an inplant visit by union representatives
10 Gainesville Mfg Co 271 NLRB 1186 118 (1984) American Thread
Co 270 NLRB 526 529 ( 1984) See also Reeves Southeastern Corp 256
NLRB 574 578 (1981) cf Carter Hawley Hale Stores 267 NLRB 385
400-401 (1983) (employers close observation of union organizers while
on selling floor is not unlawful surveillance when the employer permitted
the union organizers to freely enter the store and to engage in a wide
range of organizational activity in employee rest and break areas of the
store)
11 The Respondent refers to its employees in this context as associ
ates
procedures, and rules on many matters that are also
contained in the collective-bargaining agreement 12
Although the handbook provisions are generally
consistent with the contract provisions, there are
some discrepancies between them For example,
the employee handbook states that newly hired em
ployees will be on probation for 90 days, the col-
lective-bargaining agreement establishes only a 30-
day probationary period, which can be extended by
the Respondent for an additional maximum 30
days
The Respondent issued this handbook without
notifying or negotiating with the Union about its
contents Moreover, the Respondent purports to re-
serve the right to make future unilateral changes in
the provisions of the handbook, including those
that are mandatory subjects of bargaining We find
that the Respondent's conduct in this regard dis-
parages the collective bargaining process and im-
properly undermines the status of the Union as the
designated and recognized collective bargaining
representative of the Wheeling employees Accord
ingly, we conclude that the Respondent has violat
ed Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act as alleged See
Harvard Folding Box Co, 273 NLRB 1031, 1035-
1036 (1984), Holland American Wafer Co, 260
NLRB 267, 273-274 (1982), Woodland Supermarket,
237 NLRB 1481, 1488 (1978), Boland Marine &
Mfg Co, 225 NLRB 824 (1976), affd mem 562
F 2d 1259 (5th Cir 1977)
5 Bypassing the contractual grievance
procedure
The collective-bargaining agreement between the
parties contains a detailed grievance arbitration
procedure Step I requires a conference between
the aggrieved employee or employees, the store
manager, and the union steward, the employee or
the steward has the option of requesting that the
union business representative also be present at this
first-step grievance conference
By contrast, the "INFORMATION GUIDE
FOR OUR ASSOCIATES" (with which employ-
ees are requested to promise in writing to abide)
"encourages" employees who feel that they have
"legitimate" grievances to report such grievances
in writing directly to the store manager There is
no provision in the handbook for notifying the
Union that an employee has filed a grievance under
the above handbook provisions, nor is there a pro-
vision for participation by the Union steward at
12 For example employee classification seniority probationary period
smocks/uniforms hours of work rest and meal periods vacations holi
days funeral leave insurance dispute resolution ( associate relations in
the handbook) leaves of absence and union security / union policy are
all subjects covered by the handbook
HECK S, INC 1119
this initial step in grievance processing-provisions
expressly included in the parties' collective bar-
gaining agreement On the contrary, in the section
of the "INFORMATION GUIDE" immediately
following the section encouraging employees to file
their grievances directly with the store manager,
the employees are assured that when "you thor
oughly understand the [Respondent's] willing-
ness to discuss your job-related problems, you
surely will agree there is no need for a union "
In its brief, the Respondent does not dispute the
allegation that, by the above conduct, it has unilat-
erally established a grievance procedure in the em-
ployee handbook that is inconsistent with the
grievance procedure established in the parties' col-
lective-bargaining agreement, and that in so doing
it has failed to comply with Section 9(a) of the Act
and has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
We find that the Respondent has violated the
Act as alleged in this regard The employee hand-
book provisions discussed above have a reasonable
tendency to induce employees to reject or avoid
the contractually agreed on grievance-arbitration
procedure involving full union participation, and to
use instead the Respondent's unilaterally estab-
lished grievance procedure set forth in the employ-
ee handbook, which does not provide for union
participation Thus, the Respondent's conduct in
this regard circumvents the express provisions of
the collective-bargaining agreement and under
mines the role of the Union as the designated and
recognized collective-bargaining representative of
the Wheeling employees, in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 13
6 Prohibiting discussion of wages
The employee handbook requests employees not
to discuss their wages with each other In its brief,
the Respondent does not assert any business justifi
cation for prohibiting its employees from discussing
their wages with each other This prohibition con
stitutes a clear restraint on the employees' Section
7 right to engage in concerted activities for mutual
aid and protection concerning an undeniably signif-
icant term of employment Because the Respondent
has failed to establish any business justification for
this restraint, we find that it has acted unlawfully
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in impos-
1 s See Harvard Folding Box Co supra see generally Meilman Food
234 NLRB 698 707-709 (1978) affd mem sub nom Meat Cutters Local
304 (Meilman Food) Y NLRB 593 F 2d 1370 (D C Cir 1979) Steelwork
ers (Dow Chemical) v NLRB 536 F 2d 550 (3d Cir 1976) cf Leland
Stanford Jr University 240 NLRB 1138 fn 1 (1979) (opinion survey solic
iting grievances from represented employees not unlawful when employ
er expressly notified employees that it had no intention of bargaining di
rectly with employees and that it fully recognized legal rights of union as
employees collective bargaining representative)
ing it Scientific-Atlanta Inc, 278 NLRB 622, 625
(1986), Waco, Inc, 273 NLRB 746 (1984) The
General Counsel also alleges that the institution of
this rule violated Section 8(a)(5) at the Wheeling
facility because implementation of the rule under-
mined the status of the Union Because the remedy
would not be affected by such a finding, we do not
find it necessary to pass on this allegation
7 Antiunion handbook provision
The "INFORMATION GUIDE FOR ASSOCI-
ATES" provides
Union Policy
As a Company, we recognize the right of
each individual Employee, their freedom of
choice, their individuality and their needs as a
worker and a fellow human being For these
reasons and others, we do not want any of our
Employees to be represented by a Union
All members of Heck's management believe
in an open line of communications with our
Employees When you thoroughly understand
Heck's liberal benefit programs, the desire to
assist you in your job progress and willingness
to discuss your job-related problems, you
surely will agree there is no need for a union
or any other paid intermediary to stand be
tween you and your company
The last page of the handbook is a perforated
page containing the following
Receipt for Associate Handbook
I have received my copy of the Associate
Handbook I agree to read and keep my hand-
book for future reference and observe and be
bound by present and future company person-
nel policies and rules outlined in this manual I
further understand that this handbook is in
tended as a guide for personnel policies, bene-
fits and general information and that these
guidelines should not be construed as a con-
tract
I understand the company reserves the right
to make changes in the guidelines or their ap-
plication as it deems appropriate
Signed
Date
Department
Store Number
Upon completion, this sheet will be placed in
the Associates Personnel File [emphasis in origi-
nal]
All employees are requested to sign and date this
statement The employee handbook also has a sec-
tion entitled "Rules and Discipline Procedures "
1120 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rule 17 provides that an employee who fails to
follow company policies is subject to a written
warning or a 3 day suspension for the first viola
tion A second violation subjects the employee to a
1 week suspension A third breach of this rule is
grounds for discharge
In essence , employees are "requested" to prom
ise in writing to be bound by, inter alia, the Re
spondent's antiunion policy, these written promises
are made a matter of record in the employees' per
sonnel files, and employees could reasonably
assume that they are subject to discipline culminat
ing in discharge for violating the Respondent's an-
tiunion policy We find that the Respondent's con
duct in this regard has an inherent and direct tend
ency to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of
the Act to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in other con
certed activities for the purpose of collective bar
gaining or other mutual aid or protection The Re
spondent has effectively asked its employees to
promise in writing not to engage in any of these
protected Section 7 activities, and has warned them
that they will be disciplined if they do so We con
clude that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act 14
In finding a violation of the Act under these cir-
cumstances, we emphasize that the Respondent
acted unlawfully not in publishing its antiunion
policy in the employee handbook, but rather in re-
questing that its employees promise in writing to be
bound by that policy Accordingly, we dismiss the
General Counsel's allegation that the Respondent
acted unlawfully by promulgating and maintaining
its union policy as set forth in the handbook 15 The
violation that we find here is based on the promise
to adhere to the policy extracted from the employ
ees in writing, for inclusion in their personnel files,
'4 LaQuinta Motor Inns 293 NLRB 57 (1989 ) See also Pandair Freight
253 NLRB 973 976 980 ( 1980) (solicitation of organizational rights)
Ohio Valley Graphic Arts 234 NLRB 493 500 (1978) (solicitation of writ
ten expressions of lack of need for and opposition to union) Skyline
Transport 228 NLRB 352 354 ( 1977) (solicitation of written commitment
not to join union) Rabco Metal Products 221 NLRB 1230 1233-1234
(1975) enfd 580 F 2d 169 (9th Cir 1977) (solicitation of written expres
sions of full satisfaction with existing conditions of employment and
desire not to be represented by labor organizational) Galion Nursing
Home 220 NLRB 1333 1336 (1975) enfd in pertinent part 550 F 2d 1060
(6th Cir 1977) (same as Rabco supra) Guyon Valley Hospital 198 NLRB
107 110-111 ( 1972) (solicitation of written affrimation of full support for
employer and written expression of opinion that problems could be re
solves without help from outsiders )
15 Thus Nickey Chevrolet Sales 142 NLRB 23 (1963) is overruled to
the extent that it holds that when employees are currently represented by
a collective bargaining representative their employer is not permitted to
advise them of its opposition to their representation or to unionization
generally
and under the threat of discipline (including dis-
charge) for noncompliance
With particular regard to the Respondent s
unionized Wheeling facility, we find that the Re
spondent's inducement of employees to promise in
writing to abide by the Respondent's antiunion
policy tends to undermine the status of the Union
as the designated and recognized collective-bar-
gaining representative of the Wheeling employees,
in derogation of the Respondents obligation to bar-
gain in good faith with the Union Accordingly,
we find that the Respondent's conduct in this
regard at the Wheeling facility is violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act
2 Local 23 and Local 1059 are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act
3 The following employees of the Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act
All full time and part time selling and non-sell
ing employees employed by the Employer in
the following stores (Local 1059) Store #5,
Ashland, Kentucky, Store #13, Russell, KY,
Store #21, Athens, Ohio, Store #25, Circle
ville, Ohio, Store #31, Marietta, Ohio, (Local
1407) Store #8, Wheeling West Virginia
Store #12, Point Pleasant, West Virginia, and
Store #48, Prestonburg, Kentucky, but exclud-
ing the store manager , assistant store manager,
department heads, casual employees, one (1)
confidential employee per store, and all profes
sional employees, guards and supervisory em-
ployees as defined in the Act
4 At all times material, Local 23 has been the
designated and recognized exclusive collective-bar
gaining representative of the employees in the
above unit employed at the Respondent's Wheel
ing, West Virginia facility
5 By denying Local 23's designated collective
bargaining agents access to the Wheeling facility in
October 1983 and January 1984, for the purposes
of introducing a new union representative to the
employees and discussing health and welfare proce-
dures with the union steward, which purposes are
relevant to Local 23's discharge of its bargaining
obligation, by unilaterally issuing to its Wheeling
employees, and thereafter maintaining in effect at
its Wheeling facility the employee handbook enti
HECK S INC
tied "AN INFORMATION GUIDE FOR OUR
ASSOCIATES," without providing the Union
with notice of or opportunity to bargain about the
issuance and subsequent maintenance of the em-
ployee handbook, by encouraging employees at the
Wheeling facility to report grievances directly to
the store manager, and by purportedly reserving
the right at the Wheeling facility to make changes
in the "INFORMATION GUIDE" as the Re
spondent deems appropriate, the Respondent has
refused to bargain in good faith, in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
6 By engaging in surveillance of its Wheeling
employees' union activities and by maintaining a
policy requesting its Wheeling and Nitro employ-
ees not to discuss their wages with other employ-
ees, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act, and has there
fore violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
7 By requesting its Wheeling and Nitro employ-
ees to promise to be bound by the Respondent's
written policy that it does not want its employees
to be represented by a union and that there is no
need for a union or other paid intermediary to
stand between the employees and the Company,
the Respondent has undermined the status of the
Union as the designated and recognized exclusive
collective bargaining representative of the Wheel
ing employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act, and has interfered with, restrained, and co
erced the Wheeling and Nitro employees in the ex-
ercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
8 The above violations of the Act are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, we shall order that
it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take cer-
tain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of
the Act Accordingly, we shall order the Respond
ent, on request of the Union, to grant designated
union representatives reasonable access to the
Wheeling facility, in order to introduce new union
representatives to the unit employees and to discuss
health and welfare procedures with the union stew
and At the Wheeling facility, we shall require the
Respondent to rescind in its entirety its "INFOR
MATION GUIDE FOR OUR ASSOCIATES "
At the Nitro facility, we shall require the Respond
ent to rescind that portion of the 'INFORMA-
TION GUIDE" requesting employees not to dis-
1121
cuss their wages with other employees Also, we
shall order the Respondent to rescind its policy re
questing employees to promise to be bound by
present and future policies of the Respondent that
it does not want its employees to be represented by
a union and that there is no need for a union or
any other paid intermediary to stand between the
employees and the Respondent Finally, we shall
require the Respondent to remove from its files any
statements signed by Wheeling or Nitro employees
in which they agreed to be bound by the Respond
ent's policies contained in the "INFORMATION
GUIDE FOR OUR ASSOCIATES" involved in
the instant proceeding
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Heck's Inc, Wheeling and Nitro,
West Virginia, its officers, agents , successors, and
assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain in good faith with Local
23, United Food and Commercial Workers Union,
AFL-CIO-CLC by denying the Union's designat
ed representatives reasonable access to the Re-
spondent's Wheeling facility for the purposes of in
troducing a new union representative to the unit
employees and discussing health and welfare proce-
dures with the union steward
(b) Unilaterally issuing to its Wheeling employ-
ees, and thereafter maintaining in effect at its
Wheeling facility, the employee handbook entitled
"AN INFORMATION GUIDE FOR OUR AS
SOCIATES," without providing the Union with
notice of and an opportunity to bargain about the
issuance and subsequent maintenance of such an
employee handbook
(c) Encouraging employees at the Wheeling fa
cility to report grievances directly to the store
manager
(d) Purportedly reserving the right at the Wheel-
ing facility to make changes in the INFORMA
TION GUIDE" provisions as the Respondent
deems appropriate
(e) Engaging in surveillance of its employees'
union activities
(f) Maintaining a policy requesting employees
not to discuss their wages with other employees
(g) Disseminating to its Wheeling employees its
written policy that it does not want its employees
to be represented by a union and that there is no
the Company, and requesting that its Wheeling and
Nitro employees promise to be bound by that
policy
(h) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining , or coercing employees in the ex-
1122 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act
2 Take the following affirmative action neces
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) On request of the Union, grant the Union's
designated representatives reasonable access to the
Respondent's Wheeling facility for the purposes of
introducing a new union representative to the unit
employees and discussing health and welfare proce
dures with the union steward
(b) At the Wheeling facility rescind in its entire
ty the "INFORMATION GUIDE FOR OUR AS
SOCIATES "
(c) At the Nitro facility rescind the portion of
the "INFORMATION GUIDE" requesting em
ployees not to discuss their wages with other em-
ployees
(d) Rescind its policy requesting employees to
promise to be bound by present and future policies
of the Respondent that it does not want its employ-
ees to be represented by a union and that there is
no need for a union or any other paid intermediary
to stand between the employees and the Respond
ent
(e) Remove from its files any statements signed
by employees in which they agree to observe and
be bound by present and future company personnel
policies and rules outlined in the Respondent's
"INFORMATION GUIDE FOR OUR ASSOCI
ATES," and notify these employees that it has
done so
(f) Post at its facilities in Wheeling and Nitro,
West Virginia, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix 1116 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 6, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and main
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to em
ployees are customarily posted Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply
16 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 Nation
al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith
with Local 23, United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC by denying the
Union's designated representatives reasonable
access to our Wheeling facility for the purposes of
introducing a new union representative to the unit
employees and discussing health and welfare proce-
dures with the union steward, by unilaterally issu-
ing to our Wheeling employees and thereafter
maintaining in effect at our Wheeling facility the
employee handbook entitled "AN INFORMA
TION GUIDE FOR OUR ASSOCIATES," with-
out providing the Union with notice of and an op
portunity to bargain about the issuance and subse-
quent maintenance of such an employee handbook,
by encouraging employees at our Wheeling facility
to report grievances directly to the store manager,
and by attempting to reserve the right at our
Wheeling facility to make changes in the "INFOR-
MATION GUIDE" provisions as we deem appro-
priate
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of your
union activities
WE WILL NOT request you not to discuss your
wages with other employees
WE WILL NOT request you to promise to be
bound by our policy against union representation
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer
cise of your rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act
WE WILL, on request of the Union, grant the
Union's designated representatives reasonable
access to our Wheeling facility for the purposes of
introducing a new union representative to the unit
HECK S INC
employees and discussing health and welfare proce
dures with the union steward
WE WILL rescind our "INFORMATION
GUIDE FOR OUR ASSOCIATES" at our
Wheeling facility
WE WILL , at our Nitro facility , rescind the por
tion of the "INFORMATION GUIDE ," which re
quests employees not to discuss their wages with
other employees
WE WILL rescind our policy requesting you to
promise to be bound by our present and future
policies against union reprsentation
1123
WE WILL remove from our files any statements
signed by employees in which they agree to ob
serve and be bound by present and future company
personnel policies and rules outlined in the 'IN
FORMATION GUIDE FOR OUR ASSOCI-
ATES" and WE WILL notify employees who
have signed such statements that we have removed
them from our files
HECK'S, INC