Meat Cutters Union Local 81

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 6, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 884 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Meat Cutters Union Local 81 of the Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO and Homard R. Hall
Meat Cutters Union Local 81 of the Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO and Safeway Stores, Inc. Cases
19-CB-1472 and 19-CB-1482
October 6, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On June 23, 1970, Trial Examiner Herman Marx
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging 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,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision, with a supporting brief; the General Counsel
filed a cross-exception to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion together with a brief seeking an addition to
the Recommended Order, but otherwise supporting
the Trial Examiner's Decision ; and Charging Party
Safeway Stores, Inc., filed a brief in opposition to
Respondent's exceptions and in support of General
Counsel's position. Subsequently, Respondent filed
with the Board a motion to supplement record, and
General Counsel and Charging Party each filed a
statement in opposition to Respondent's motion.
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 considered the Trial Examiner's
Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire
record in this case' and finds merit in General
Counsel's cross-exception. The Board therefore
adopts the findings , conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the
addition to the Remedy noted below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
' The Board hereby denies Respondent 's motion to supplement record
as the evidence sought to be introduced by that motion is immaterial
to any issue pending before the Board.
tions Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as enlarged
herein, and orders that Respondent, Meat Cutters
Union Local 81 of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of America, AFL-CIO, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order, as so modified.
1. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) of the
Order and also as the third indented paragraph of
the Appendix, but preceded in the latter case by
the words "WE WILL":
"Expunge all records or other evidence in the union
files relating to the proceedings by which Homard
R. Hall was fined and expelled from membership
in Respondent in 1968 and 1969."
2. Change the period at the end of paragraph
numbered 2(b) in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order, and also at the end of the fourth full paragraph
of the Appendix, to a comma, and add the following
language:
"that he has been fully reinstated to membership,
and that all records or other evidence in the union
files relating to the proceedings by which he was
fined and expelled from membership in 1968 and
1969 have been expunged from the union files."
3. Renumber the paragraphs now designated as
paragraphs 2(b),(c),(d), and (e) to paragraphs
2(c),(d),(e), and (f), respectively.
DECISION OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN MARX, Trial Examiner: The complaint alleges
that the Respondent, a labor organization known as Meat
Cutters Union Local 81 of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO (herein
the Union or Local 81), in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B)
of the National Labor Relations Act' (herein the Act),
restrained and coerced Safeway Stores, Inc. (herein Safeway
or the Company) in the selection of a representative for
the adjustment of grievances by fining and expelling from
membership in the Union one Homard R. Hall, a supervisor
in Safeway's employ, because he complied with instructions
given him by the Company for the performance of his
work.2
The Respondent has filed an answer which, in material
substance, denies the commission of the unfair labor prac-
tices imputed to it.
Pursuant to notice duly served by the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board (herein the Board)
29USC 151,etseq
2 The complaint was issued on January 12, 1970, and is based on a charge
filed in Case 19-CB-1472 on November 21, 1969, and another filed in Case
19-CB-1482 on January 7, 1970 Both cases were duly consolidated for
hearing on January 12, 1970 Copies of both charges, the complaint, and the
order of consolidation have been duly served on the Respondent.
185 NLRB No. 130
MEAT CUTTERS UNION LOCAL 81
upon all other parties, a hearing on the issues was held
before me, as duly designated Trial Examiner, in Seattle,
Washington, on April 2, 1970. All parties appeared and
were afforded a full opportunity to adduce evidence, examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and submit oral argument
and briefs.
Upon the entire record, from my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and having read and considered
the briefs filed with me since the close of the hearing,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
Safeway Stores, Inc, is a Maryland corporation; does
business in the State of Washington where it owns and
operates a chain of retail stores in which it sells meats,
groceries, and other products; and is, and has been at
all times material to the issues in this proceeding, an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
The Company has an annual gross income from its
business operations in the State of Washington in excess
of $500,000, and annually purchases goods valued in excess
of $50,000 from suppliers located outside the said State.
By reason of such purchases, Safeway is, and has been
at all material times, engaged in interstate commerce, and
in operations affecting such commerce, within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, the Board
has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 81 is, and has been at all material times, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act; and a local affiliate of an international labor body
called Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, AFL-CIO (herein the International).
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory Statement
Safeway operates a number of stores in Seattle and vicini-
ty, including one in Bothell, Washington, which contain
meat markets, in which meat products are cut, packaged,
priced, displayed, and sold at retail The meat market
employees, including those bearing the classification of
"manager" (also called "head meatcutter"), are represented
for collective-bargaining purposes by Local 81.
The Company also operates a meat products warehouse
at Bellevue, Washington, where bulk meats are reduced
to smaller cuts and otherwise processed, and then shipped
to the Safeway stores in the Seattle area for retail sale
through their respective meat markets. Although Bellevue
is within the terntonal area in which Local 81 asserts
jurisdiction, the meat warehouse employees, for reasons
not material here, are not represented by Local 81, but
by another local affiliate (herein Local 186) of the Interna-
tional.
885
Meat market employees at 16 Safeway stores in the
Seattle area, including the Bothell store, are subject to
a contract between Local 81, as the employees' bargaining
representative, and an organization named Allied Employ-
ers, Inc. (herein Allied), which represents Safeway and
other retail food chains in the Seattle area in negotiating
and administering collective-bargaining agreements. The
contract which, by its terms, became effective as of October
2, 1967, and is to be in effect until at least May 1, 1971,
is applicable to the managers of the affected meat markets;
requires them (by force of sec. 10 of the contract), like
all other meat market personnel subject to the agreement,
to become members of Local 81, after an appropriate grace
period, and retain such membership as a condition of
employment; and provides (in sec. 14C) that "[t]he jurisdic-
tion of Local #81 covers the cutting, handling, pricing and
sale of all meats . . . in the area covered by this
Agreement in either service of self-service markets."
Section 13B of the contract provides that "[a]ll matters
pertaining to the proper application and interpretation of
any and all provisions of this Agreement shall be adjusted
by the accredited representative of Allied Employers, Inc.
and the accredited representative of the Union", and that in
the event of a failure to reach a satisfactory adjustment
within 15 days, "the matter shall be referred for final
adjustment to a Labor Relations Committee" (selected as
provided in the contract) By the terms the Section 13F of
the agreement, the "Union reserves the right to discipline
its members for violations of its contract."
The meat market in the Bothell store is managed by
Homard R Hall, who is classified as head meatcutter
and has held the managerial post since some point in
1966. In that capacity, he has the responsibility for ordering
meat products, as needed, from the Bellevue warehouse
and other supply sources, directs the work of about a
half dozen employees in the Bothell meat market; prepares
their work schedules; assigns duties to them, possesses
effective authority to recommend the hire, promotion and
discharge of employees; and, as the Respondent concedes
by admitting allegations (par. 5b) of the complaint in its
answer, "has the power to adjust, or to effectively recom-
mend the adjustment of, grievances made by employees
under his supervision." As the evidence establishes, without
dispute, Hall is, and has been at all material times, a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Hall became a member of the Union in 1955, and retained
his membership in good standing after becoming manager
of the meat market at the Bothell store until his expulsion
from membership as of May 6, 1969, under circumstances
that will presently appear.
The processes of fine-grinding meat (for hamburger) and
slicing of liver preparatory to sale through the 16 Safeway
meat markets in the Seattle area was formerly performed
on the market premises by employees subject to the contract
with Local 81, but in July 1968, the Company notified
the managers of these markets, all of whom, like Hall,
were vested with authority to order meat products for
their respective markets, that thenceforth the fine-grinding
and liver-slicing operations were not to be performed in
the stores, and that fine-ground meat and sliced liver would
be available at the central Bellevue facility, and directed
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the managers to fill their market requirements for these
products by ordering them from the Bellevue warehouse
Put into practice, the policy would have the effect of
transferring work equivalent to that of seven or eight jour-
neymen employed on the basis of a 40-hour week from
market personnel represented by Local 81 to employees
at the Bellevue facility represented by Local 186.'
At some point thereafter in 1968, Local 81 informed
the Company that it was opposed to the change, and
in or about January 1969 distributed copies of a bulletin
to its membership, expressing the position, in substance,
that the requisitioning of fine-ground beef and sliced liver
from the Bellevue facility was a violation of the collective-
bargaining agreement; directing managers not to follow
such a course; and asserting in effect, that they would
be disciplined by the Union if they did so.
On February 13, 1969, Allied on behalf of Safeway
wrote a letter to the Union, protesting the issuance of
the bulletin, and taking the position, in substance, that
the procurement of fine-ground meat and sliced liver from
the Bellevue warehouse did not violate the contract, but
that the Union had violated both the contract and collective
bargaining provisions of the Act by issuing the bulletin.
This was followed by an exchange of correspondence
between Allied and the Union, the upshot of which was
that they agreed to arbitrate the question whether section
14C of the contract, which defines the "jurisdiction" of
Local 81, requires that "all meats sold by retail markets
covered by the Agreement be cut or otherwise processed
only on the premises of such retail markets."
The question has since been submitted to an arbitrator
who had not as yet rendered his decision at the time
of the hearing in this proceeding.
B. Hall's Discipline by the Union
In common with other Safeway meat market managers
in Seattle and vicinity, Hall was informed of the Company's
procurement directive in July 1968, and since then, as
manager of the Bothell market, he has procured the
fineground meat and sliced liver for the market from the
Bellevue facitlty. He received a copy of the Union's bulletin
shortly after its issuance, and has been aware of the Union's
policy requiring Safeway meat market managers to abstain
from ordering fine-ground meat and sliced liver from the
Bellevue warehouse, but has nevertheless since continued to
procure these products from that facitlity.4
8 The finding as to the reduced work volume resulting from the transfer is
based on the testimony of an officer of Local 81, Konrad Johnson His
estimate is not effectively refuted by a generalization by a Safeway
representative, William Flanigan, that the policy would reduce work in the
meat markets to "a small degree " Flanigan gave no figures
" The results in this case are unaffected by a temporary relaxation of the
Company's directive over a period of some months to give market managers
the option of ordering fineground meat and sliced liver from the Bellevue
warehouse The directive was fully reinstated in July 1969, but again relaxed
by the Company, as part of the agreement for arbitration, to the extent of
having the fine-grinding process performed on the premises at all Safeway
markets except the one in Bothell where Hall has continued to procure fine-
ground meat, as well as sliced liver, from the warehouse in compliance with
the Company's directive The second relaxation also does not affect the
results in this proceeding
On December 3, 1968, the Union, after affording Hall
an opportunity to appear before its executive board on
a charge of procuring fine-ground meat and sliced liver
from the Bellevue facility, fined Hall $50 on the charge,
upon recommendation of the executive board. The latter
body subsequently requested him, by letter, to appear before
it on February 17, 1969 because he had not paid the
fine, and to "explain" his conduct in ordering the products
from the central warehouse; and thereafter, by letter dated
March 10, 1969, the Union notified him that he had been
fined an additional $10, in conformity with article XXIII
of its constitution, for failure to appear as requested. Article
XXIII terms such fines "a civil debt," and provides that
they are "collectible" by "civil suit" in the Washington
state courts.
Early in April 1969, representatives of the Union brought
a disciplinary proceeding against Hall, charging him with
two specifications of misconduct: (1) "continued and willful
violation" of the collective-bargaining agreement "in order-
ing fine-ground meat and sliced liver" from the warehouse;
and (2) willful disregard of a request from officers of
the Union that he desist from such "violation" pending
resolution of the dispute between the Union and Safeway
under grievance procedures provided by the contract. The
Union notified Hall by letter dated April 16, 1969, that
a trial committee had been elected to hear the charges,
and that a hearing on the allegations would be held on
April 29, 1969, at a specified place.
There is no evidence of what took place at the hearing,
except for hearsay in the form of a letter dated May
29, 1969, from the Union to Hall, stating, among other
things, that he had failed "to respond" (to appear at the
hearing, presumably); that the trial committee had "pro-
ceeded with its deliberations," and had recommended that
he be "suspended" from membership, effective May 6,
1969; that the membership of the organization had, by
vote, "concurred in" the recommendation; and that "you
now stand as suspended from membership" in Local 81.
Beyond the penalty imposed on Hall, the record contains
no specific finding by the trial committee on either of
the two specifications of misconduct imputed to him.
Although the letter refers to the discipline imposed on
Hall as suspension from membership, the action taken
against him, as the probative record establishes, was that
of expulsion from membership in the Union, with a conse-
quent loss of rights to sick and death benefits appurtenant
to membership.' Upon an appeal taken by Hall, the president
of the International affirmed the Union's action.
C. Concluding Findings
The ultimate issue here is whether by disciplining Hall,
the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act which,
in material part, forbids a labor organization "to restrain
5 The answer admits allegations of the complaint (par 8d) to the effect
that Hall was expelled
MEAT CUTTERS UNION LOCAL 81
or coerce . . . an employer in the selection of his
representatives for . . . the adjustment of grievances."s
As a preliminary to disposition of the issue, it may
be useful to define the role of the evidence relating to
the arbitration, and of the contract dispute between the
Union and Safeway. The agreement for arbitration and
the correspondence that, led to it, while of interest in
spelling out the dispute between the Union and Safeway,
do not materially affect the issue No claim is made by
any party that the Board should defer to the contractual
grievance machinery or the arbitration result, but in addition
it is worth noting that the issue here is different from
that submitted to the arbitrator.' The latter question does
not call for a determination whether the discipline imposed
on Hall violated the Act, nor provide for reparation for
Hall in the event that it did.
Conversely, unlike the arbitration question, the issue -
presented here does not hinge upon a determination whether
the transfer of the fine-grinding and liver-slicing processes
from the market premises , or "jurisdiction" of Local 81,
to the Bellevue facility violated the contract. In fact, at
the hearing, counsel for the Union expressly stated that
it was opposed to litigation "in this case" of any issue
of compliance with the contract "in any way, shape or
form, because it is not within the scope of the complaint";
Safeway similarly took the position, through counsel, that
"the merits" of the contract dispute are not in issue in
this case, and it is evident from the general thrust of
the General Counsel's case that he does not tie his claim
that the discipline of Hall violated the Act to a contention
that Safeway was within its contractual rights in requiring
the market managers to procure fine-ground meat and
sliced liver from the Bellevue warehouse.'
There is, in other words, substantial accord among the
parties that the contractual propriety of the transfer of
the fine-grinding and liver-slicing processes from the markets
to the central warehouse is not an issue in this case;
and proceeding on that premise, which I accept, it necessarily
follows that the effect of section 13F of the contract,
which "reserves (to the Union) the right to discipline its
members for violations of its contract" (emphasis supplied),
has no material role in this case The Union makes no
claim that section 13F has the effect of a waiver by Safeway
or Hall (who is subject to the contract terms) of any
right to complain of the discipline imposed upon Hall
(nor, for that matter, does it mention section 13F in its
brief). Indeed, such a contention is precluded by the very
position it takes that the question whether Safeway (and
thus Hall) violated the contract by ordering fine-ground
s
There is no claim by any party that the disciplinary proceedings that led
to Hall's fines and expulsion were not in conformity with procedural
requirements established by the constitutions or other regulations of the
Union and International, and for the purposes of this case only, I assume
that the proceedings conformed to such requirements
' Sec 10(a) of the Act, of course, preserves the power of the Board to
determine whether the Union has committed the unfair labor practices
alleged, irrespective of the contractual grievance provisions and the
submission to arbitration
" Hall, who, like Safeway, is a charging party, entered an appearance pro
se, but took no part in the case in that capacity, stating that the General
Counsel would represent him, and thus indicating that he would be bound by
the positions taken by the General Counsel
887
meat and sliced liver from the warehouse may not be
litigated in this proceeding.
Moreover, as previously noted, apart from the discipline
imposed on Hall, the record contains no finding by the
Union's trial committee on either specification of misconduct
with which he was charged; and notwithstanding the content
of the specifications, there is good reason to conclude
that the Union rested the discipline on a policy consideration
rather than its contract. Its answer admits allegations of
the complaint (pars. 7b and 8) to the effect that Hall
was fined and expelled because he "placed orders" in
accordance with Safeway's instructions, and in its brief,
it argues for the legality of the discipline not on the ground
that Hall violated the contract, but that he had "violated
a duly-adopted union policy directed at the preservation
of bargaining-unit work." The Union's positions may proper-
ly be treated as admissions, and coupling the admission
in the answer with the Union's insistence that the question
of violation of the contract may not be litigated here,
and with its position that it had a right to discipline
Hall for violating "union policy," I find that the Union
imposed the initial fine of $50 on him and expelled him
from membership because he procured fine-ground meat
and sliced liver from the Bellevue warehouse, and thereby
violated the Union's policy that the fine-grinding and liver-
slicing processes be performed on the market premises.'
The Respondent sees support for its asserted right in
Scofield v. N.L.R.B., 394 U.S. 423, in which the Supreme
Court held that a union did not abridge Section 7 guarantees
of employees, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
Act, by disciplining members for violating a rule regarding
work production ceilings, in which, as the Court noted,
the union had "a legitimate . . . interest."
Local 81 has a comparably legitimate interest in preserving
work opportunities for the employees it represents in the
markets, and as in Scofield, the "internal" union discipline
,did not affect the employment of the union member disci-
plined, but there the analogy ends. This case does not
involve allegations of restraint or coercion of employees
in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A), but charges restraint
and coercion of an employer in the selection of a representa-
tive for the adjustment of grievances, in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(B), and it is wholly beside the point here to talk
of the Section 7 guarantees, or the lack of any impact
of the discipline on the employment of Hall (to whom
the guarantees do not apply, in any case, because of his
supervisory status). What is more, the proviso to Section
8(b)(1)(A), preserving "the right of a labor organization
to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition
or retention of membership therein," does not apply to
Section 8(b)(1)(B).'° In short, the Scofieldcase is inapposite.
The issue presented requires little added discussion, for
the result is controlled by a number of Board decisions,
holding, in substance, that a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(B)
I As section 13F of the contract is not materially involved in this case, I
neither express nor imply any view as to its reach in the event-wholly
hypothetical here-of discipline of a supervisor such as Hall for "violations"
of the contract
10 San Francisco-Oakland Mailers' Union No 18, (Northwest
Publications, Inc ), 172 NLRB No 252
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
where, it disciplines, a member, who has responsibilities
as a representative !of the employer in administering a
collective-bargaining' agreement or the adjustment of
employees' grievances, because he performs duties as a
management representative." It is of no moment that the
collective-bargaining contract makes no express provision
for the participation of a supervisor such as Hall in the
grievance machinery provided there, for Section 8(b)(1)(B)
draws no distinction between a representative for the adjust-
ment of grievances who functions under contractual griev-
ance procedures, and one who does not. 12
The sum of the matter is that by fining and expelling
Hall from its membership because he ordered fine-ground
meat and sliced liver from the Bellevue warehouse in the
course of his duties, in contravention of a policy of the
Union, Local 81 restrained and coerced the Company in
the selection of a representative for the adjustment of griev-
ances; and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Union set forth in section III,
above; occurring in connection with Safeway's operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union has engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act,
I'shall recommend below that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the
following conclusions of law:
1. The Union is, and has been at all material times,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act. '
2. Safeway Stores, Inc., is, and has been at all material
times, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2)
of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing Safeway Stores, Inc., in
the selection of a representative for the adjustment of griev-
ances, as found above, the Union has engaged in and
" Toledo Locals Nos 15-P and 272, Lithographers and Photoengravers
international Union (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc), 175 NLRB No
173, Dallas Mailers Union, Local No 142 (Dow Jones Company, Inc ), 181
NLRB No 49, San Francisco Mailers Union No 18 (Northwest
Publications, Inc ), supra, New Mexico District Council of Carpenters and
Joiners of America (A S Horner, Inc ), 176 NLRB No 105
12 Toledo Locals Nos 15-P and 272, Lithographers and Photoengravers
International Union (The Toledo Blade Company, Inc ), 175 NLRB No
173 "
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) 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
proceeding , I recommend that Meat Cutters Union Local
81 of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, AFL-CIO, its officers , representatives,
and agents , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Restraining or coercing Safeway Stores, Inc., in the
selection of any representative for the adjustment of griev-
ances of employees of the said Company , who are represent-
ed for collective -bargaining purposes by the said Union,
by fining, suspending or expelling from membership in
the Union , or otherwise disciplining , any such representative
because he has performed , or may perform, any duty or
responsibility vested in him by the said Company."
(b) Giving effect to, or in any way attempting to collect,
the assessments or fines against Homard R. Hall, described
above. "°
2. Take the following affirmative actions which, I find,
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Forthwith reinstate Homard R. Hall to membership
in the said Union , with all rights and privileges pertaining
to such membership , and give retroactive effect to the
time of his expulsion from membership in the Union to
all sick , death , or other monetary benefits appurtenant
to such membership , and in the event any such benefit
has become payable since his expulsion, pay it forthwith
to the person or persons entitled thereto as though the
expulsion had not taken place
(b) Forthwith notify the said Homard R. Hall, in writing,
that he does not owe the Union the said fines or assessments.
(c) Post at its headquarters and usual membership meeting
place, including all places where notices to its members
are customarily posted , copies of the attached notice . Copies
" I do not agree with a position of the General Counsel, reflected in his
brief, to the effect that the Union should be required to cease and desist from
"[i]n any manner restraining or coercing Safeway Stores, Inc , , or any other
employer," in the selection of representatives "for the purposes of collective
bargaining or the adjustment of grievances" (emphasis supplied) The
requested restraint is too broad at least to the extent of the underscored
language The restraint I have recommended is substantially tailored to the
type of violation involved, extending protection to "any representative" of
Safeway for the adjustment of grievances of Safeway employees represented
by the Union because the Union has fined another Safeway meat market
manager for much the same reason as the discipline of Hall, and its bulletin
(G C Exh 15) threatens to deal severely with any other member who
disobeys requirements set forth in the bulletin
1' Although the Union's letter of March 10, 1969, states that the $10 fine
resulted from Hall's failure "to respond" to a request that he appear before
the executive board, it is evident from the Union's letter of February 6, 1969,
that the requirement that he appear was rooted in his failure to pay the $50,
and in his conduct in ordering fine-ground meat and sliced liver from the
warehouse In other words, the $10 fine stands on no better footing than the
$50 assessment, and, like the latter, should not be given effect
MEAT CUTTERS UNION LOCAL 81
of the said notice, on foyms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of the Union, shall be posted
by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to its members
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the said Union to insure that said notice is not altered,
defaced or covered by any other material."
(d) Forthwith mail copies of the said notice to the said
Regional Director at the Regional Office of the National
Labor Relations Board in Seattle, Washington, after such
copies have been signed, as provided above, for posting
by Safeway Stores, Inc., if it so agrees, in places where
it customarily posts notices to individuals in its employ,
who are represented by the Union for collective-bargaining
purposes.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this decision, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 16
15 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, recommendations, and recommended order herein shall, as
provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the,
Board and become its findings, conclusions and order, and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board's
Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the
words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor
Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
Is In the event that this recommended order is adopted by the Board, par
2(e) 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 therewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify you that:
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity
to present evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act, and has ordered us to post
this notice.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Safeway Stores,
Inc., in the selection of any representative for the
889
adjustment of grievances of employees of the said
Safeway Stores, Inc., who are represented for collective-
bargaining purposes by this Union, by fining, suspend-
ing, or expelling from membership in the Union, or
otherwise disciplining, any such representative because
he has performed, or may perform, any duty or respon-
sibility vested in him by the said Company.
WE WILL NOT give effect to, or in any way attempt
to collect, the assessments or fines this Union imposed
on Homard R. Hall because, as manager of the meat
market operated by Safeway Stores, Inc., in Bothell,
Washington, he has ordered meat products from the
warehouse of Safeway Stores, Inc., in Bellevue, Wash-
ington.
WE WILL forthwith notify the said Homard R.
Hall, in writing, that he does not owe the Union
the said fines or assessments.
WE WILL forthwith reinstate Homard R. Hall to
membership in this Union, with all rights and privileges
pertaining to such membership; give retroactive effect
to the time of his expulsion from membership in the
Union to all sick, death, and other monetary benefits
appurtenant to such membership; and in the event
any such benefit has become payable since his expulsion,
forthwith pay it to the person or persons entitled
thereto as though the expulsion had not taken place
MEAT CUTTERS UNION
LOCAL 8 1 OF THE
AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS AND BUTCHER
WORKMEN OF NORTH
AMERICA , AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
ByDated
(Representative)
(Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Republic
Building, 10th Floor, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washing-
ton 98101, Telephone 583-7473.