Meijer's Thrifty Acres

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 8, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 18 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Meijer, Inc:, d/b/a Meijer's Thrifty Acres and Retail
Store Employees Union , Local 876, Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO and Consoli-
dated Independent Union , Local 951 , Party to the
Contract
Consolidated Independent Union, Local 951 and Re-
tail Store Employees Union , Local 876 , Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO and
Meijer Inc ., d/b/a Meijer's Thrifty Acres, Party to
the Contract . Cases 7-CA-11623 and 7-CB-3246
January 8, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On October 10, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Robert M. Schwarzbart issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Meijer,
Inc., and Respondent Consolidated Independent
Union, Local 951, filed exceptions and supporting
briefs and the Retail Store Employees Union, Local
876, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO, filed a Motion to Strike Exceptions of Respon-
dent Consolidated Independent Union, Local 951,1 a
brief in support thereof and in support of the Admin-
istrative Law Judge's decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondents, Meijer, Inc., d/b/a
Meijer's Thrifty Acres, Walker, Michigan, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Consolidat-
ed Independent Union, Local 951, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall take the action set
forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommend-
ed Order.
i The motion to strike the Respondent Union's exceptions was based on
apparent untimeliness if served on the Board by mail The motion was
denied as the exceptions were in fact hand delivered and timely received by
the Board.
2
The Administrative Law Judge incorrectly stated in fn 50 of his Deci-
sion that reimbursement was ordered in Spartans Industries, Inc, 169 NLRB
309 (1968) ,We view the error as having no effect upon the appropriateness
of his recommended remedy as Spartans is factually distinguishable particu-
larly because that case arose in a right-to-work state Thus, it may be pre-
sumed that there was no union-security clause and dues deductions were
not compulsory under the bargaining agreement unlawfully extended there
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT M. SCHWARZBART, Administrative Law Judge:
These consolidated cases I were heard at Detroit, Michi-
gan, on March 27 and 28 and April 21, 22, and 23, 1975.
The charge 2 and first amended charge in Case
7-CA-11623 were filed on December 5, 1974, and Febru-
ary 3, 1975, respectively, while the respective charge and
first amended charge in Case 7-CB-3246, were filed on
January 28 and February 3, 1975. The consolidated com-
plaint, issued February 19, 1975, and answers filed thereto
by Respondent Meijer, Inc., d/b/a Meijer's Thrifty Acres,
and Consolidated Independent Union, Local 951, herein
called CIU, place in issue whether Meijer has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and whether CIU has violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. The respective parties have
filed able briefs.
Upon the entire record herein, my observation of the
witnesses and upon consideration of the briefs, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The consolidated complaint alleges and the answer ad-
mits that the Respondent Employer, a Michigan corpora-
tion with its principal offices in Walker, Michigan,' is en-
gaged in the retail sale and distribution of groceries,
appliances, clothing, and other consumer hard and soft
goods and related products at its various retail store outlets
within the State of Michigan. During the calendar year
ending December 31, 1974, which period is representative
of its business operations during all times material, the Re-
spondent Employer received gross revenues in excess of $1
million from the retail sale of merchandise at its various
stores and, during that same period, purchased and caused
to be transported and delivered to its various Michigan
stores and outlets, such goods and materials valued in ex-
cess of $1 million, of which goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 were transported to stores and warehous-
es within the State of Michigan, directly from points out-
side the State of Michigan. I find therefrom that at all
times material herein the Respondent Employer has been
1 The name of the case appears as amended , sua sponte
2 All charges herein were filed by Retail Store Employees Union, Local
876, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO
3 The location of the Respondent Employer's main office appears herein
in conformity with the amendment to the consolidated complaint made at
the hearing.
222 NLRB No. 20
MEIJER'S THRIFTY ACRES 19
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
CIU and the Charging Party are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
ployed at the Employer's 17 retail establishments and
warehouse located in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and
environs, including all full-time and regular part-time
employees at the Employer's Thrifty Acres stores, but
excluding employees working in the bank, shoe repair,
barber shop, beauty shop, major appliances, credit,
and bakery departments, office clerical employees,
store managers, assistant store managers, department
managers, and all other supervisors as defined in the
Act.
A. The Issue
The consolidated complaint alleges that the Respon-
dents, Employer and CIU, had unlawfully imposed and
enforced their collective-bargaining agreement and its
union-security provisions, effective at the Respondent
Employer's 24 other Michigan retail stores, on the employ-
ees of Meijer's most recently opened store in Plymouth,
Michigan, as the Plymouth employees had not designated
the CIU as their representative prior to the affording of
such recognition and the application of the contract. The
Plymouth employees, it is contended, were thereby de-
prived of the right to choose their own bargaining repre-
sentative. The Respondents do not deny the absence of
such authorization but assert that the Plymouth store is an
accretion to the previously established multilocation unit.
Of course, if the Respondents are correct, any apparent
deprivation of Section 7 rights would not be applicable and
their conduct would not be violative of the Act.
B. Background
The Respondent Employer commenced operations as a
small grocery store in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1934,
but thereafter opened additional facilities. Since 1951, the
Respondent Employer has recognized the CIU as the ex-
clusive bargaining agent of its employees in a multistore
chainwide unit. As the Respondent Employer opened new
stores, the employees therein were automatically included
in the coverage of whichever bargaining agreement with
the CIU was then in effect.
Pursuant to representation petitions filed by a sister local
of the instant Charging Party, the Board issued its deci-
sion 4 on May 9, 1963, directing an election in the following
unit:
All full-time and regular part-time employees em-
'See Meyer Supermarkets, Inc, 142 NLRB 513, where the history of the
Respondent Employer until 1963 is set forth. In reaching its conclusion to
establish a multistore unit, the Board, in that matter, rejected the Retail
Clerks revised position that two separate units of the employees in (1) the
Company's then 14 supermarkets and sole warehouse and (2) the first of its
Thrifty Acres stores, respectively, should be found appropriate. The first
Thrifty Acres store had been opened after the filing of the original petition
in that case and was, in effect, an expanded former company supermarket
situated in Grand Rapids. The differences between the new Thrifty Acres
store and the previous supermarket were that the former occupied four
times the space of the supermarket, the staff was increased from about 50
employees to approximately 175 and two-thirds of its merchandising area
became allocated to the sale of nonfood items The Board, there, contrary to
the position of the Retail Clerks, also included in the unit the two even
newer Thrifty Acres stores in Holland and Muskegon, Michigan, one of
which, too, had been expanded from a former Meijer supermarket
At the time of the 1963 Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion, the unit therein found appropriate consisted of ap-
proximately a thousand employees. The CIU was thereaf-
ter certified as bargaining representative.
An effort by a local of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Warehousemen of America, to
sever the warehouse from this overall bargaining unit, was
rejected by the then incumbent Regional Director for Re-
gion 7 in his Decision and Order,5 dated July 19, 1966.
In the years that followed, the Respondent Employer
continued to open additional Thrifty Acres stores, until by
November 1, 1974, under the same corporate structure,
Meijer operated a total of 24 stores in various Michigan
communities .6
As noted, as each new store was added to the Respon-
dent Employer's chain, it was treated by the Respondents
as an accretion to the existing unit and their collective-
bargaining. agreement was effectuated at each location .7
Accordingly, it is undisputed that the union-security provi-
sion of the collective-bargaining agreement, requiring
union membership as a condition of continued employ-
ment after a probationary period of 30 days was enforced
as to all recently hired employees,' as was the provision for
5 Meyer, Inc, and its wholly-owned subsidairy, Meyer Wholesale Inc, Case
7-RC-7351 (unpublished) In dismissing the petition therein on the ground
that severance of the warehouse was not warranted on either a craft or
departmental basis, the Regional Director found similarities as well as dif-
ferences in the operation of the warehouse and stores. The Regional Direc-
tor, noting the Board's 1963 Direction of Election, the centralization of
management , labor relations , and employee interchange, concluded that it
would not be warranted to disturb a well-established bargaining relation-
ship unless required by the dictates of the Act or by compelling circum-
stances, neither of which exceptions, he found, existed.
6 At the time of the 1963 Board decision, the Respondent Employer had
supermarkets in Greenville, Ionia, Kentwood, Grand Rapids (three stores),
Wyoming, Walker, Battle Creek, Grand Haven, and the three Thrifty Acres
stores previously noted at Grand Rapids, Holland, and Muskegon Several
other stores in existence in 1963 have since closed The record revealed that
from 1963 until November 1974, the Respondent has opened additional
Thrifty Acres stores in the following Michigan metropolitan areas. Grand
Rapids, Kalamazoo, Portage, Lansing (two stores) Okemos, Jenison, Ypsi-
lanti, Flint (two stores), and Jackson No new supermarkets have been
opened since 1963 and many of its former supermarkets were expanded and
reopened as Thrifty Acres stores. Accordingly, as of November 1, 1974, the
Respondent Employer was operating a total of 24 stores at the above locali-
ties, of which 5 were supermarkets and the remainder Thrifty Acres stores.
The Respondent Employer's corporate offices in Walker are in a suburb of
Grand Rapids
'The successive collective-bargaining agreements have also been applied
to the employees at the Respondent Employer's warehouses, which now are
two in number
8 The record revealed that since 1951, the Respondents have negotiated
nine complete contracts with respect to the instant unit, the most recent one
being effective from 1972 , to August 9, 1975. During their bargaining rela-
Continued
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the deduction from wages of dues and initiation fees .9
The Respondents , relying on the above-described prior
decisions by the Board and the Regional Director estab-
lishing and maintaining the multilocation unit , continua-
tion of policies in effect at the time of the Board's 1963
decision , the extensive evidence of centralized manage-
ment control over operating procedures , personnel, pur-
chasing, labor relations , employerwide seniority , advertis-
ing, and other areas introduced into the record herein and
a long multilocation bargaining history, argue , contrary to
the General Counsel and Charging Party, that the Plym-
outh store is a true accretion to the existing unit.
C. The Plymouth Store
As noted, the Plymouth store became operative on No-
vember 19, 1972. Designated by the Respondent Employer
as Store No. 32, it occupies approximately 250,000 square
feet, has about 60 checkout counters, and, at the time of
the hearing, employed approximately 164 full-time and 310
part-time employees 10 in the bargaining unit.) l The store is
directly supervised by William Hildreth, the store manager,
three line managers for food products, hard goods, and soft
goods, respectively, who report to Hildreth, a security man-
ager, and 27 department managers who report to their re-
spective line managers.
The Respondent Employer began to interview pros-
pective employees for the Plymouth store on or about Sep-
tember 1, 1974, at the nearby Canton Township firehouse.
The Plymouth store opened with a total work force of
about 892,12 including 668 bargaining unit employees. Of
the 668 employees in unit classifications, 61 were perma-
nent transferees from other stores, 441 had been hired in
the Plymouth area during the late summer and early fall of
1974 and had worked at other Meijer stores before being
transferred to the Plymouth store 13 and 166 employees had
been locally hired and trained at the Plymouth store.14
tionship, they have also agreed upon a total of two contract amendments,
one supplement and eight wage reopeners
9 The language of the Respondents' most recent collective -bargaining
agreement anticipates that the contract would be applied to additional facil-
ities. Accordingly, art 2.1 of the agreement broadly specifies without limit-
ing language , that CIU is the "exclusive bargaining agent for employees of
Meijer, Inc ," while art. 13.9 provides for the negotiation of contract supple-
ments to cover terms and conditions of employment in the event that the
Respondent Employer should acquire an additional unit or units that do not
include supermarket operations.
1 i Part-time employees work a minimum of 14 hours a week . The record
revealed that most employees start their employment in the Respondent
Employer's stores on a part-time basis and thereafter become full time.
i In addition to the foregoing , there were also present on the premises
certain employees whom the respective parties contend should not be prop-
erly included in any appropriate unit These include two clerical employees
(the store manager 's secretary and another clerical employee who follows
through on advertising), three management trainees , regarded as superviso-
ry, 12 security employees, and employees of the leased departments, which
include beauty shop and pharmacy employees
12 Nonunit personnel included 30 managerial employees, all of whom
transferred from other stores, 24 office and professional employees , and 116
seasonal employees.
13 These employees had been hired at the Plymouth store, but had worked
at stores in Flint , Lansing, Jackson , and Ann Arbor prior to the opening of
the Plymouth store in accordance with a program that affords new employ-
ees training experience at established facilities
14 It is undisputed that during the weeks of the Plymouth store's "Grand
Opening," 80 less-experienced Plymouth store employees were sent the
However, the employee complement deemed necessary to
meet the increased volume of business at the "Grand
Opening" and the close-following Christmas shopping sea-
son, thereafter was reduced to the approximately 47415
full-time and part-time unit employees indicated above.
In early November 1974, shortly before the opening of
the Plymouth store, newly hired employees were required
to attend a series of orientation meetings at the Plymouth
store. At these meetings, each employee was given a new
employee personnel kit containing, inter alia, an employee
handbook, which, in addition to summarizing the Respon-
dent Employee's history, policies, and benefits, informed
employees that on completion of their 30-day probationary
period, they "will become a member of" CIU. The person-
nel kit also contained a CIU business envelope containing
an application for membership in CIU, a dues checkoff
authorization and an enclosure entitled, "Why You Should
Join and Be Members of Consolidated Independent,
Union Local 951." This document, listing the benefits
available through negotiated contracts and CIU member-
ship, also informed employees that membership has been
made a condition of employment under all CIU con-
tracts,16 with dues to become payable on completion of the
30-day probationary period." During the orientation meet-
ings, Store Manager Hildreth introduced various company
officials, including Fred Meijer, company president, and
CIU officials, who, respectively, addressed the new em-
ployees.ls
It is undisputed that since the opening of the Plymouth
store, the collective-bargaining agreement between the Re-
spondents has been fully implemented and that the union-
security provisions therein have been enforced as to all reg-
ular full-time and part-time employees who have complet-
ed their 30-day probationary period. Accordingly, dues
and initiation fees have been withheld from the pay of
Plymouth store employees . It is likewise undisputed that
the recognition afforded CIU and the effectuation of the
Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement was not pre-
ceded by or based on a submission of authorization cards
signed on behalf of the CIU by Plymouth store employees.
D. Method of Operation
In support of the Respondents' contentions, much evi-
dence has been adduced to show the centralized nature of
the Respondent Employer's operations. Thus, the retail
stores are under the general supervision of Jack Koetje,
vice president. Three district managers, each responsible
for the operation of seven or eight stores, report to Koetje.
work at the Respondent Employer's Jackson store, while 30 experienced
cashiers from the Jackson store were brought into the Plymouth store to
assist with the initial operation.
15 The current personnel complement at the Plymouth store, found above,
reflects the stipulation of the parties at the hearing This number is thus
deemed more accurate than the figure of 397 employees shown in Resp
Em1p Exh 17.
CLU has a collective-bargaining agreement with one other employer
beside Meijer
17 The personnel kit also included a welcoming letter, a list of work rules,
and other miscellaneous documents
is The record shows that the union officials although introduced by Hil-
dreth, did not conduct their part of the meeting in the presence of company
management
MEIJER'S THRIFTY ACRES 21
There is no geographic orientation to the assignment of
district managers. Districts are set up so that each district
manager has responsibility for approximately the same
square store footage and effort is made to have some Thrif-
ty Acres and some supermarkets in each district. While
district manager assignments are not permanent as to dis-
trict, at all times material herein, the manager over the
district which includes the Plymouth store has been Leo-
nard Krampe.19 Koetje and the district managers are based
in the Walker offices.
New stores are set up with the assistance of specialists for
the various departments, who are also based in the central
offices. Specialists 20 prescribe the layout for the respective
departments in each store, specify how shelf space shall be
allocated productwise in their departments, both initially
and subsequently, pursuant to seasonal and other promo-
tions. As liaison between the various stores and the central
office, specialists attempt to visit each new store once a
week and the older,'established stores every 2 weeks for
visits lasting from about 1-1/2 to 2 hours. During their
visits to stores, specialist check the housekeeping condition
of their respective departments, verify compliance with the
Respondent Employer's centralized pricing policies, dis-
play and shelf allocation, and check the order books to
insure that the department managers have written the re-
quired two orders per week for additional merchandise and
goods 21 Specialists also check the movement of invento-
ry 22 and report their observations to the buyers, also based
at the main office. The buyers purchase goods for all stores
and warehouses, direct the flow of inventory from the
warehouses to the outlets, and control pricing, including
markdowns. The same merchandise is carried at all stores.
For approximately the past 4 years, labor relations have
been centrally managed by the labor relations department
presently consisting principally of Labor Relations Manag-
er Boyer and his associate. All personnel and payroll re-
cords are kept at the central offices and store managers are
expected to communicate with'the labor relations director
or his associate and their respective district managers with
respect to discharges of seniority employees 23
19 Krampe's seven store district also includes two stores in Grand Rapids,
two in Lansing, and stores in Okemos and Ypsilanti, respectively
20 There are specialists for each of the Respondent Employer's retail de-
partments and a service specialist in charge of cashiers and the courtesy
desks, all of whom are also based in the central offices in Walker They
report to the head specialist in their own area ' of competence and are re-
sponsible for their departments in all of the Respondent 's stores However,
there are two grocery specialists, one'of whom visits the grocery depart-
ments , in 13 stores while the other covers the remaining 12
21 In each department, the department manager functions as order writer,
requisitioning additional goods through the main office. Orders are trans-
mitted by MSI machine to the main office where they are received by coor-
dinators whose responsibility it is to see that orders are correctly and timely
delivered. However, in its grocery departments alone, the Respondent Em-
ployer has instituted an automated reordering system which provides for the
filling of a series of standard orders based on computerized data. However,
standard orders may be modified at the store as warranted.
22 "Dollar" inventories are taken about four times a year in each store by
itinerant crews working out of the home office , while product inventories
are taken in each department under the aegis of the specialists. Specialists
also help to train new store managers.
23 It is undisputed that store managers may independently terminate pro-
bationary and nontsnit employees such as their secretaries , except for rea-
sons of theft, at which times they are required to seek clearance They also
Boyer checks proposed personnel actions, in terms of
conformity with the collective -bargaining agreement in or-
der to avoid grievances and, where required, participates in
the grievance procedure as company spokesman at the
third step. Although the store manager serves as employer
spokesman at the second stage of the grievance procedure,
he normally would have consulted previously with the la-
bor relations department . Store managers serve as advisers
in subsequent grievance steps. The labor relations repre-
sentatives are also involved in ascertaining that the con-
tract is followed with respect to seniority and other terms
in cases of employee layoff, recall, job bidding, and the
filling 'of vacancies. While no comprehensive labor rela-
tions policy has been published, since January 1973, the
labor relations director has prepared and issued about 24
topical labor letters, generally consisting of one page, and
frequently receives calls from district and store managers
with respect to current problems.
Advertising, too, principally in newspapers, is centrally
administered by a Walker-based director of advertising.
About 95 percent of the Respondent Employer's advertis-
ing is the same for all stores with a variance of up to 5
percent of the utilized space to publicize events at individu-
al stores.
All facilities, including the Plymouth store, are subject to
additional forms of centralized authority. Accordingly,
management has prepared and furnished the stores with a
very comprehensive policy and procedure manual, which,
as its name indicates, details the Respondent Employer's
various policies and the approved methods of handling the
foreseeable aspects of its operations. The record also con-
tains examples of various miscellaneous policy statements
and directives as to how local management is to conduct
itself in a variety of situations, including, as an example,
inspections pursuant to the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970.
Staff size is determined in accordance with labor bud-
gets 24 prepared at headquarters. Postprobationary employ-
ees who transfer from one store to another retain their se-
niority 25 for all purposes and transfer procedures, layoff
and recall are all centrally administered in accordance with
the collective-bargaining agreement.
New employees are oriented in part by exposure to train-
ing materials and presentations prepared at the home of-
fice and they may be sent at Respondent Employer's op-
tion to work temporarily in other Meijer stores in order to
gam additional experience.
The days and hours of operation for the various stores
issue oral or written reprimands to all employees, as warranted, recording
same . Store managers may suspend all categories of employees of Met'er's
and the leased departments for intoxication, customer ' discourtesy , or other
serious infractions , without regard to the cooperation received from the
leased department employing the individual. The district manager in con-
junction with the labor relations department would thereafter determine
whether employees whom store managers may have suspended for stealing
or other criminal conduct should be prosecuted or otherwise further disci-
plined.
24 Labor budgets prepared weekly for each store and divided into depart-
ments , show the amount that a given store department may spend on labor
based on a percentage of that department 's sales receipts.
25 Employees transferred between the distribution centers, stores, and
maintenance department , however , commence new seniority dates for all
job purposes, excluding fringe benefits and layoff
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are determined in the Walker office which , through its li-
censee coordinator, also negotiates leases with the tenant
departments independently of the local store managers.
Store managers may contact maintenance contractors to
seek such necessary services as snow or garbage removal
from lists furnished by the central office . Store managers
are expected to ensure the smooth operation of their re-
spective units in conformity with company policies. Includ-
ed in their responsibilities is enforcement of the Company's
policy of progressive discipline whereunder employees are
subjected to penalties of increasing severity for repeated
breaches of the Respondent Employer's work rules and
policies. Employee performance , whether for praise or pen-
alty, is recorded on change of status forms, Meijer supplied
documents, which are prepared by the initiating depart-
ment manager are thereafter signed by the store manager
and sent to the district manager for his approval . District
Manager Krampe testified that disciplinary measures tak-
en against employees with seniority are first approved by
him in advance of receipt of the change of status form and
that he checks such forms to determine whether the previ-
ously determined course of action is accurately reflected 26
Such documents, including personnel interview forms, also
provide the district managers with an opportunity to verify
whether prescribed disciplinary procedures are being fol-
lowed in the case of centrally discovered offenses . In this
regard , the central office also employs mystery shoppers
who travel to the various stores posing as customers. They
note inaccuracies by cashiers such as making incorrect
change or leaving unchecked merchandise on the bottom
of shopping carts. Mystery shoppers ' reports serve as bases
for effectuating the Respondent Employer's policy of pro-
gressive discipline . Effectuation of progressive discipline is
checked by the district manager who learns of the problem
by his copy of the mystery shoppers' reports and of the
corrective steps taken by the reports forwarded to his of-
fice.
The administration of vacations and personal holidays is
partially automated in that the central office sends com-
puter printouts in advance of the vacation season or the
employee's birthday, as the case may be, showing the
employee's vacation or personal holiday entitlement. These
are passed on to the employees by local management.
However, employee vacations are actually scheduled by
their local department managers.
The Respondent Employer, during the past 2 years, has
also introduced at six of its stores, not including the Plym-
outh facility, a computerized method of scheduling the as-
signment of cashiers . This system was based on individual
cash register tape readings in order to document the pat-
tern of sales. Data compiled for the computer included
store sales history, available equipment , including types of
cash registers , the type and sales time of merchandise sold,
the volume of business at given hours, and the work availa-
bility and seniority of individual cashiers. From the fore-
going, weekly computer printouts are sent to each of the
involved stores that serve as a basis for cashier scheduling
26 The great majority of the change of status forms forwarded to the
district manager's office relates to purely mechanical changes , noting
changes of address , marital status , and similar matters
and assignment in the service department 27 In stores where
this function is not automated , cashier scheduling is per-
formed by the service managers . They may also alter the
computer printed schedule in relevant stores, as required
by circumstances28
Fringe benefits are centrally administered and are avail-
able to all eligible employees on a companywise basis. New
employees are informed of the existence of these benefits
initially through materials furnished them by the Respon-
dents in the above-described new employees personnel kit
distributed at orientation meetings.29
Cash receipts earned by each store are deposited in a
management-designated bank. The local store manager
cannot withdraw funds from these accounts once deposited
and retains control over those funds utilized for the pur-
chase of wine and beer which must be paid for at the time
of delivery.
The Respondents ' witnesses testified throughout the pro-
ceeding that the procedures outlined herein had not mate-
rially changed since the decisions by the Board and its
Regional Director in 1963 and 1966, respectively.
The General Counsel and the Charging Party contend
that the above attributes of centralized control over the
Respondent Employer's chain of stores do not warrant a
finding that the Plymouth store is an accretion to the ex-
isting unit. In support of their position , they indicate areas
of local store autonomy and argue that many of the factors
relative to centralization effecting the Plymouth store are
not indigenous to the nature of the operation but arise
from application of the collective-bargaining agreement
between the Respondents , which the General Counsel and
Charging Party assert had been unlawfully applied to the
Plymouth store in the first instance 30
With respect to local store autonomy , the record re-
vealed that the stores are separately evaluated by central
management as to profitability and performance, and that
store managers have independent authority to (1) hire new
employees , (2) discharge probationary employees, (3) re-
lease seasonal employees, (4) discipline employees by way
of oral and written reprimands, (5) determine their own
work schedule, (6) suspend employees of Meijer 's and of
the leased departments for serious infractions during work-
ing hours such as intoxication or rudeness to customers,
pending disposition by the central office, (7) rehire laid off
27 The service specialist is in charge of the service departments i at all 25
stores . Service department employees include cashiers in their various cate-
gories, including those at the checkout counters , the cash office, and at the
courtesy desk , and baggers . Cashiers constitute approximately 40 percent of
the overall bargaining unit.
28 Another computerized operation utilized in the Respondent Employer's
operations in the stock status report , which indicates to buyers the amount
of particular products in stock, how much of same is in the warehouses and
what has been shipped to the stores
29 Fringe benefits include paid hospitalization and life insurance, dental
and pension plans , school tuition reimbursement, paid sick leave and per-
sonal holidays , funeral leave, eyeglass program , and other items.
30 Support for the latter premise may be drawn from the undisputed au-
thority of the store manager to independently control the employment of
nonumt employees such as his secretary , probationary and seasonal em-
ployees and guards , leading to an inference, argued by the, General Counsel
and Charging Party . that the restraints on the store manager with respect to
personnel matters affecting bargaining unit employees exist for the purpose
of avoiding grievances which might otherwise arise under the Respondent's
collective-bargaining agreement
MEIJER'S THRIFTY ACRES 23
guards on the basis of company need and his estimate of
their abilities, without regard to seniority, and (8) direct
involuntary overtime work in conjunction with the depart-
ment managers, and are generally in charge of the day-to-
day operation of their stores. In addition to the foregoing,
Plymouth Store Manager Hildreth testified that he was
generally responsible for the hire of the great majority of
the employees for his new facility. He also had recom-
mended two of the three line managers for their jobs, had
made recommendations for the placement of department
managers in his store,31 all of whom transferred in from
other stores, independently designates one of the line man-
agers or the security manager to serve as closing manager .32
Hildreth further testified that if he planned to be away
from the store for less than 1-day, he would independently
appoint his replacement. In instances of more prolonged
absences and in anticipation of his vacation periods, he
would make a recommendation to District Manager
Krampe as to who should serve as acting store manager
until his return. Krampe would then make the decision.
Hildreth has also recommended approximately 30 wage in-
creases for management personnel , all but five or six of
which were approved. He also has made recommendations
as to the hire of management trainees whom he had initial-
ly interviewed 33 and that he had effectively recommended
the departmental placement of one of the three manage-
ment trainees in the Plymouth store.34 Hildreth also
averred that, in practice, he has delayed or modified the
administration of the Respondent Employer's above-noted
policy of progressive discipline without reaction from the
central office. With regard to intrastore transfer requests,
Hildreth has made recommendations to the relevant line
and department managers and the department managers
finally decide the same with Hildreth's advice. Hildreth
believes that probationary periods for employees have
been extended by his store line managers on his advice, but
could not recall individual instances. He also could reduce
the labor budgets in his store by scheduling fewer working
hours, as long as his store functioned properly.
Similarly at the store level, department managers ap-
prove employee breaks, prepare employee interview and
change of status reports, release employees for reasons of
illness or for personal needs, record the reprimands they
administer, schedule the vacations of employees in their
departments on the basis of the centrally computed entitle-
ment as set forth'in the computer printout. As noted, with
31 The record is clear that District Manager Krampe , rather than the store
manager, has authority to determine the placement of management person-
nel. However, with respect to the effectiveness of Hildreth 's suggestions to
central management for , the filling of managerial positions , he testified that
about 25 of his recommendations were followed and that 4 or 5 were not
32 The closing manager is in charge of the store during the remaining
evening hours after Hildreth has left for the day.
33 Hildreth denied making recommendations as to management trainees
whom he had not interviewed initially
34 The record revealed that two of the management trainees at the Plym-
outh store had been promoted from within the bargaining unit and the third
hired from the outside. Hildreth knows of no company policy as to whether
he should make recommendations as to their hire , but his testimony as to
the practice is set forth herein. Accordingly , as Hildreth did not conduct the
initial interview of the third management trainee , he made no recommenda-
tion as to his hire , but was able to make a recommendation as to the
applicant's placement.
the store manager's approval, they may designate employ-
ees to work overtime on a mandatory basis 35 Department
managers also arrange the work schedules of the employees
in their department. Courtesy desks at the various stores,
including Plymouth , are authorized to deal with customer
complaints and to cash their checks.
While much of the foregoing is established in the record
without dispute, Krampe, contrary to Hildreth, testified
that store managers play no role in deciding who will re-
place them at vacation time or otherwise, an area left solely
to the district manager. Krampe testified that he hires and
places management personnel with no input from the store
managers . Managerial personnel are trained to serve as
closing managers at the central office at formally conduct-
ed semiannual seminars . Traveling about 12 hours a week,
Krampe visits the stores in his district once or twice each
week and monitors them regularly through use of the em-
ployee interview forms, change of status reports, and cash-
ier reports that cross his desk. According to Krampe, store
managers may not deviate from promptly administering
the Respondent Employer's progressive discipline policies
where indicated, including those noted from mystery shop-
pers' and cashier's reports which he regularly verifies from
the monitoring means at his disposal. He also challenged
the testimony of a Plymouth store employee called as a
witness by the General Counsel, that her department man-
ager had the authority to independently cut short the train-
ing assignment to temporarily work at another store that
had been given to her and several other new employees.36
Krampe testified that local store management may not
vary from the labor budgets assigned, except in the case of
the new stores, which, during their initial periods of opera-
tion, are considered exceptions.
From my observation of the witnesses, noting the logic
and probability of his testimony as the senior official of a
large store operating at a substantial distance from the cen-
tral office, the above-described testimony of Hildreth is
credited over the more partisan testimony of Krampe. Hil-
dreth testified forthrightly with respect to his daily experi-
ences, describing his authority as understood and prac-
ticed. Hildreth did not hesitate to indicate areas which
were unfamiliar or unknown to him, and he appeared to be
loyal to the interest of the Respondent , noting that, in his
view, the Plymouth store, as presently constituted, could
not operate without the supportive services of the central
office. Accordingly, Hildreth's description of his duties and
autonomy as Plymouth store manager, set forth above, is
hereby accepted.
The General Counsel and Charging Party also indicate
the geographic separation of the Plymouth store from other
stores in the chain, as the first Meijer facility in the Detroit
metropolitan area. The record revealed that the Plymouth
35 Having found that the pricing policies are wholly within the control of
the central office, I credit the testimony of Krampe and Koetje to the effect
that department managers may not vary directed price markdowns, as this
area is basic to the successful operation of the Respondent Employer's busi-
ness and its customer relations.
36 While Krampe denied that department managers have authority to end
such training assignments , he did not deny that the described incident had
actually occurred . Nonetheless, from the weight of the evidence relating to
the centralized administration of training procedures, it would appear that
the department manager had exceeded his authority in this regard
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
store is about 155 miles from the central office. The nearest
Meijer store to the Plymouth facility, at Ypsilanti, is ap-
proximately 18 miles away. The next nearest facility is
about 49 miles distant, while three stores are within a range
of 64 to 69 miles from Plymouth. Approximately 18 of the
Respondent Employer's remaining stores are from 110 to
188 miles from the Plymouth store. Of these, about 14
stores are at least about 139 miles from the Plymouth facil-
ity, with most being much further removed. The Plymouth
outlet is approximately 89 miles from the Battle Creek
store, the nearest existing facility operative at the time of
the 1963 Board decision.
The current complement of employees working in bar-
gaining-unit classifications in all of the Respondent
Employer's stores has increased from approximately 1,000
employees at the time of the 1963 certification to about
9,000 at the time of the hearing,37 a point also noted by the
General Counsel.
In addition, the General Counsel indicated an absence
of significant employee interchange after the initial period.
The original staffing of the Plymouth store has been de-
scribed above. Since the opening of the Plymouth facility,
the record revealed that there have been five permanent
and temporary transfers, respectively, to the Plymouth
store by bargaining unit employees, the permanent trans-
fers being caused by either area or companywide bumping.
One more employee who had temporarily transferred to
the Plymouth store from another Meijer outlet is presently
at a third facility.38
E. Analysis
The question of whether a group of employees constitute
an accretion to an existing uni+ so that the group is gov-
erned by the larger unit's bargaining representative is simi-
lar to the issue of a particular unit's appropriateness for
bargaining purposes.
In Haag Drug Company, Incorporated,39 the Board reaf-
firmed its policy that a single store in a retail chain, like
single locations of multilocation enterprises in other indus-
tries is presumptively an appropriate unit for bargaining.
In the Haag case, the Board recognized that retail chain
operations nearly always involve a high degree of centrali-
zation, especially in the areas of recordkeeping, merchan-
37 The finding that 9,000 employees presently work in unit classifications
rather than the total of 6,172 shown in Resp Empl Exh 17 is predicated on
the testimony of Vice President Koetje As the stipulated employee comple-
ment for the Plymouth store as noted above, varied from the number of
employees in that store shown in that exhibit , it would appear that the
exhibit is in some respects less than completely accurate
38 The Respondent Employer presented evidence with respect to inter-
change at its store 11 in Grand Rapids and store 27 in Ypsilanti , as repre-
sentative of its older and newer stores, respectively , seeking to establish that
employee interchange was more pronounced throughout its chain than at
the Plymouth store . Accordingly, in the period from January 1, 1974,
through April 14, 1975, 33 employees transferred to store I 1 and 20 transfer-
red from that store In the same period , 34 employees transferred to store 27
and 61 employees moved from there to other Meijer facilities . However, this
data cannot necessarily reflect the experience of the Plymouth store This is
even more true of the unclassified totals of employee transfers since Meijer
bean operation in 1934 that were introduced into the record
169 NLRB 877 (1968) Also see Hochschild Kohn & Co, Incorporated,
184 NLRB 636 ( 1970); Sav-On Drugs, Inc, 138 NLRB 1032 (1962)
dising, administration, and labor relations policy, but held
that:
Absent a bargaining history in a more comprehensive
unit or functional integration of a sufficient degree to
obliterate separate identity, the employees' "fullest
freedom" is maximized, we believe, by treating the
employees in a single store or restaurant of a retail
chain operation as normally constituting an appropri-
ate unit for collective-bargaining purposes.
In cases such as Haag, Hochschzld, Kohn & Co., supra,
and Frzsch's Big Boy III-Mar, Inc.,40 the Board has recog-
nized that the presence of centralized administrative con-
trol is characteristic of the retail chain store industry, but
has placed greater significance on the measure of autono-
my that has been vested in the local store manager under
whom the employees perform their day-to-day work. Ac-
cordingly, individual store units have been found where the
branch store managers have substantial authority in the
daily operation of their facilities, including meaningful par-
ticipation in the hiring process, and where they interview
applicants for employment, evaluate employee perfor-
mance, and administer discipline. Other important factors
generally considered by the Board in determining whether
a single retail store is appropriate or whether it should be
accreted to a broader unit in a retail chain are: the history
of collective bargaining; the extent of centralized and local
managerial control over labor relations and store policies;
the geographic proximity of the stores to each other; the
frequency of an interchange of employees between the
stores; and whether any union is seeking a more limited or
broader unit than the unit proposed.41
Many of the relevant legal precedents in this area have
arisen under Section 9 of the Act, governing the conduct of
representation proceedings and, therefore, are directly con-
cerned with initial unit determinations in such cases. How-
ever, essentially the same factors are involved in determin-
ing whether employees at a subsequently established single
location should be absorbed into an existing multiple loca-
tion without their consent. Nonetheless, there is an impor-
tant difference. As the court noted in Sheraton Kauai Cor-
poration v. N.L.R.B.,42 in cases where the accretion or
absorption of a facility into an existing larger unit is in
issue, the employees' rights of self-organization under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act are even more clearly at stake than in
initial representation proceedings. In the latter type of pro-
ceedings, where a multilocation unit has been found appro-
priate, employees at each included single location have an
opportunity to participate in the resolution of the represen-
tation issue. However,, employees at a new single location
that has been absorbed into a multilocation unit by accre-
tion are denied that opportunity. Accordingly, in view of
Section 7 rights, the defense of accretion has been narrowly
construed 43
40147 NLRB 551 (1954) Also see Purity Food Stores (Sav-More Food
Stores), 160 NLRB 651, 656 (1966), enforcement denied 376 F.2d 497 (C A.
I, 1967), Penn Traffic Company, Riverside Division, 219 NLRB No 35
(1975)
41 Spartans Industries, Inc, 169 NLRB 309 (1968), affd 406 F.2d 1002
(CA 5, 1969)
42 429 F 2d 1352 (CA 9, 1970)
43 Sunset House, supra, 167 NLRB 870, 873, (1967), enfd 415 F 2d 545
(C.A 9, 1969)
MEIJER'S THRIFTY ACRES 25
Therefore, in cases such as Sheraton-Kauai Corp., supra,
and Melbet Jewelry Co., Inc.,' the Board, noting that em-
ployees' rights to self-organization under Section 7 of the
Act are not subordinate to the appropriate unit concept of
Section 9(b), has exercised diligence to ensure that Section
7 rights could not be abrogated by excessive preoccupation
with "appropriate" unit. In both the Sheraton-Kauai Corp.
and Melbet Jewelry Co. cases, where the circumstances in-
dicated that both the larger multilocation units and the
new single location facilities, respectively, sought to be ac-
creted to the larger group could be appropriate for bargain-
ing purposes, the Board declined "under the guise of accre-
tion" to add the employees to the larger unit without
affording them an opportunity to express their preference
on the matter of a bargaining representative.
In the instant case, it appears that the Respondent Em-
ployer is involved in a typical retail chain store operation
with the attendent centralized managerial control, as de-
tailed above, that is characteristic of this industry. Howev-
er, the existence of such factors does not mandate a finding
that the Plymouth store is an accretion to the existing
unit 45
The great majority of nonsupervisory employees at the
Plymouth facility were hired by its local store management
and, after the initial flurry of personnel moves necessary to
launch a new store, there has been but little interchange
between the Plymouth store employees and those at
Meyer's other stores. As noted, the branch store manager,
whose facility is separately rated as to profitability and
performance, is in charge of the day-to-day operations of
his store with authority, detailed above, that includes inter
alia, the areas of hire, discipline, discharge of probationary
and nonunit employees, and release of seasonal employees.
He also participates in the grievance procedure, selects the
closing manager, and acting store manager during his brief
absences and has a role in the placement of managerial
employees within the store. In addition, employees are
evaluated locally.
The significance of the geographic separation of the fa-
cility sought to be accreted from the larger group has been
considered in cases such as Sunset House, supra. Accretion
has not been found to be appropriate with respect to facih-
ties physically removed from the larger group as they tend
to serve different trade areas with separate economic and
marketing considerations.
44 180 NLRB 107 (1969)
45 See the The Grand Union Company, 176 NLRB 230 (1969), where the
Board declined to find that a single store had accreted to a multilocation
chain although many of the elements of centralized managerial control re-
lied on herein by the Respondents here were present. The Board in reaching
its decision in Grand Union, again noted that such factors of centralized
control are of little relevance to the issue of accretion as they are record
keeping or administrative in nature and do not directly affect the employ-
ees' day-to-day work performance or concern the daily matters affecting the
community of interest of employees in the store Rather, the Board empha-
sized the importance of the authority of the store manager to hire, dis-
charge, process grievances, and handle routine daily problems Also, see the
Board's related discussion in Purity Food Stores, Inc. (Sav-More Food
Stores), 160 NLRB 1651, supra Although the First Circuit twice disagreed
with the Board's decisions in Purity Food Stores, at 354 F 2d 926 (1965), and
376 F.2d 497 (1967), as noted by the Respondents, with proper respect to
the court, I am, of course, bound by the Board's determinations.
The Respondents, as noted, at the hearing, and in their
briefs, rely heavily upon the Board's 1963 decision in Mei-
jer Supermarkets, Inc., 142 NLRB 513, from which they
draw historical justification for their position herein. In ad-
dition, the Respondents indicate that in later deciding in
favor of a single store unit in the Haag Drug case, supra,
the Board specifically distinguished and thereby reaffirmed
the Meyer case . The Respondents, having sought to prove
throughout this proceeding that the Company's essential
operating methods and policies have not changed since the
time of the Meyer decision, now argue that that case
should still be controlling. Contrary to the position of the
Respondents, however, circumstances since 1963 have
changed materially. The first Meyer decision established a
unit of 17 stores, mostly supermarkets and a warehouse "in
Grand Rapids, Michigan, and environs." That unit consist-
ed of approximately 1,000 employees. The overall unit
sought by the Respondents herein would consist of 25
stores mostly giant Thrifty Acres stores and 2 distribution
centers employing a total of about 9,000 unit employees,
with many of these employees, including those at the Plym-
outh store, situated far from Grand Rapids and'its immedi-
ate locale. In N.L.R.B. v. Sunset House, supra, in refusing to
find an accretion, the Ninth Circuit, inter alia, distin-
guished the 1963 Meyer case noting that in that case, all
the stores were in one city and the immediately surround-
ing area, with continual employee interchange, indicating
that all of the employees could participate without difficul-
ty in union activities. The record reveals that such factors
are no longer present. The Board has not allowed its earlier
decisions to continue to control the rights of specific par-
ties where there later have been material changes in cir-
cumstances46
The Respondents' argument in form of accretion based
on their above-described long history of bargaining on a
multilocation basis is similarly without merit. Although the
CIU has been afforded recognition as bargaining represen-
tative at the Plymouth store, which, in my view, is a sepa-
rate appropriate unit, from the record herein, noting that
there has been no multistore bargaining involving the
Plymouth store and that there is no evidence that the em-
ployers of that store had ever freely assented to multistore
bargaining on their behalf, I conclude that the Plymouth
store has not been effectively merged into the existing mul-
tistore unit.47
The Respondent Employer has argued that to segment
the Plymouth store would have an adverse, if not chaotic,
effect on its centralized operations. However, as noted, the
Plymouth facility has not been so integrated that its sepa-
ration from the others for purposes of collective bargaining
could obstruct centralized control and effective operation
of the chain48 In addition, as the Respondents have creat-
ed the present situation, having through the years, accreted
about 8,000 employees to the unit of approximately 1,000
46 John 's Bargain Store Corporation, 160 NLRB 1519 (1966).
47 Food Fair Stores, Inc., 204 NLRB 75, 76 (1973).
48 See Purity Food Stores ($av-More Food Stores), 160 NLRB at 656, supra.
In Purity Food Stores, Inc, supra, the Board also noted that the potential
impact or want thereof of a labor dispute arising at the separate store on
that Employer's other stores would not, in itself , be a controlling factor in
determining separate unit appropriateness
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees originally certified, Section 7 of the Act would
appear to compel a finding that the group of 474 employ-
ees now employed at the Plymouth store should not also be
deprived of a voice in the selection of their bargaining rep-
resentative.
It is therefore found that the Respondent Employer and
CIU, by enforcing their collective-bargaining agreement
and its union-shop provisions as to the Plymouth store em-
ployees at a time when CIU was not the freely selected
majority representative of those employees, unlawfully im-
pinged on the statutory right of those employees to express
a free choice as to their bargaining representative. Accord-
ingly, it is concluded that the Respondent Employer has
violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and that the CIU has
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act 49
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent
Company's operations described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record in this
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Meijer, Inc., d/b/a Meijer's Thrifty Acres, is an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Consolidated Independent Union, Local 951, the Re-
spondent Union herein, and Retail Store Employees
Union, Local 876, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By assisting and recognizing the Respondent Union
as bargaining representative for its employees at its store in
Plymouth, Michigan, by maintaining and enforcing a col-
lective-bargaining agreement containing union-security
49 The Respondents also claim justification for having extended their con-
tract to cover the Plymouth store employees on the ground that no other
union had sought to represent them. In support of this, they introduced into
the record a letter, dated November 18, 1974, to the Respondent Employer's
president from the Charging Party's secretary-treasurer This letter an-
nounced that on the following day, when the store was to open, the Charg-
mg Union would commence "informational picketing" of the store to advise
the public that Meyer did not have a labor contract with the Charging
Party The letter further advised that the Charging Party "does not make
any recognitional claims , and disclaims doing so." However , it is apparent
from the record that the Charging Party's letter played no role in the Re-
spondents' decision to extend the contract to the Plymouth store. Well be-
fore the said letter was received, consistent with Respondents' existing prac-
tices, employee orientation meetings were being held at the Plymouth store
during which the new employees were being issued the new employee per-
sonnel kits containing CIU literature and advised of their obligation to
become members of the CIU after concluding their 30-day probationary
periods as a condition of continued employment. In addition, as the Charg-
ing Party has pressed its representational interest, including the filing of the
underlying charges herein, there appears to be no merit to the Respondent's
contention.
provisions at that facility, thereby encouraging member-
ship in the Respondent Union, the Respondent Company
has engaged in, and is continuing to engage in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3)
of the Act.
4. By obtaining recognition as bargaining representative
at the Respondent Employer's Plymouth, Michigan, store
in the absence of support from an uncoerced majority of
the employees in that store in a unit appropriate for pur-
poses of bargaining, and by maintaining and enforcing as
to the employees at that facility, a contract containing
union-security provisions, thereby causing the Respondent
Employer to discriminate against employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Respondent Union has en-
gaged in, and is continuing to engage in, unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they be re-
quired to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that the Respondent Employer unlawfully
recognized and rendered support to the Respondent Union
at the Plymouth store and unlawfully enforced a bargain-
ing contract containing union-security provisions with that
organization. I shall, therefore, recommend that the Re-
spondent Employer withdraw and withhold all recognition
from the Respondent Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of its Plymouth employees and cease giving
effect at Plymouth to its contract which expired on August
9, 1975, with that organization, or to any extension, renew-
al, modification, or supplement thereto, or to any supersed-
ing contract, unless and until Respondent Union is certi-
fied by the Board as such representative. However, nothing
herein shall be construed as requiring the Respondent Em-
ployer to vary or abandon the wages, hours, seniority, or
other substantive features established in the performance
of said contract, or to prejudice the assertion by employees
of any rights they may have thereunder.
I also recommend that the Respondents be required,
jointly and severally, to reimburse all employees of Re-
spondent Employer's Plymouth store, present and former,
for dues and initiation fees unlawfully exacted from them,
with interest, as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
133 NLRB 716 (1962).50
50 The Respondent Union, citing Intalco Aluminum Corporation v
N LR B 417 F 2d 361 (C A 9, 1969), Spartans Industries, Inc, 169 NLRB
309 (1968), enfd 406 F 2d 1002 (C A. 5, 1969), argued in its brief that the
Respondents had proceeded in good faith, acting herein on reliance of the
prior decisions by the Board and its Regional Director affecting this unit
and the long bargaining history that resulted therefrom Accordingly, even
were it to be found that the Act had been violated, it would be unwarranted
to require reimbursement of union dues and initiation fees as a part of the
remedy. Intalco Aluminum, supra, did not involve accretion and in subse-
quent accretion cases the Ninth Circuit, which had issued Intalco Aluminum,
ordered reimbursement and specifically restricted its Intalco Aluminum deci-
MEIJER'S THRIFTY ACRES 27
The Respondent Employer's coercion of employees to
join the Respondent Union and its potent support and as-
sistance to that organization warrant the inference that the
commission of similar unfair labor practices by them may
be anticipated in the future. The remedy should be coex-
tensive with the threat, and I therefore recommend that
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing
in any manner on the rights guaranteed employees by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I recommend the following:
ORDER 51
A. Respondent Employer, Meijer, Inc., d/b/a Meijer's
Thrifty Acres, Plymouth, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Encouraging membership in Consolidated Indepen-
dent Union, Local 951, or in any other labor organization
of its employees, by discriminating in any manner in re-
gard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or con-
dition thereof, except to the extent authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) Giving effect to its contract which expired on Au-
gust 9, 1975, with the above-named labor organization,
with respect to its employees at its Plymouth, Michigan,
store, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or sup-
plement thereto, or to any superseding agreement, until
said labor organization is certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the representative of its employees at
its Plymouth store, provided that the Respondent Employ-
er, in complying herewith, shall not be required to vary or
abandon wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive fea-
tures of its relations with employees established in the per-
formance of said contract.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that those
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in the labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withhold and withdraw all recognition from Consol-
idated Independent Union, Local 951, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of its employees at its Plymouth store, until said
labor organization is duly certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the exclusive representative of such em-
ployees.
Sion to its facts . See Sheraton -Kauai Corporation v. N L R B, 429 F.2d 1352,
1358, fn. 6 (C A 9, 1970) Contrary to the contention of the Respondent
CIU,'reimbursement was, in fact,'ordered in Spartans Industries, Inc., supra,
and Super Markets General Corporation, d/b/a Shop-Rite, supra
51 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 , 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.
(b) Post at its Plymouth, Michigan, store copies of the
attached notices respectively marked Appendix "A" and
"B." 52 Copies of said notices on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by
Respondent Union's representative, shall be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, records reflecting moneys withheld from wag-
es at its Plymouth store for purposes of paying union dues
and initiation fees to Consolidated Independent Union,
Local 951, showing the disposition of same, and all other
records necessary for the determination of the amounts
due in reimbursement of such union dues and initiation
fees to individual employees under the terms of this recom-
mended Order.
(4) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent Union, Consolidated Independent
Union, Local 951, its officers, representatives, and agents,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause the Respondent Em-
ployer to discriminate against employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) Giving effect to its contract which expired August 9,
1975, with Respondent Company with respect to employ-
ees at Respondent Employer's Plymouth, Michigan, store,
or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement
thereto, or to any superseding agreement, until Respondent
Union is certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as the representative of the aforesaid employees of Respon-
dent Company.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees of Respondent Employer in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent
that those rights may be affected by an agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its business office, copies of the attached no-
tice marked "Appendix B." Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after
being duly signed by Respondent Union's representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
52 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notices reading "Posted by Order
of the National 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 "
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
faced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 7 signed
copies of the notice attached marked "Appendix B" for
posting, in places where notices to the Plymouth employees
of Respondent Company are customarily posted for a peri-
od of 60 consecutive days thereafter. Copies of said notices
shall be furnished by said, Regional Director, signed by the
Respondent Union, and forthwith returned to the Regional
Director for said posting.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all finan-
cial and membership records reflecting monies received or
due from employees of the Respondent Employer's Plym-
outh store, as union dues and initiation fees, and all other
records necessary for the determination of the amount due
in reimbursement of such union dues and initiation fees to
individual employees at that store under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Respondent Em-
ployer and the Respondent Union shall jointly and sever-
ally reimburse all employees for dues and initiation fees
exacted from the employees of the former, with interest, as
provided above in "The Remedy."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides were represented by their
attorneys and presented evidence, it has been found that
we have violated the National Labor Relations Act in cer-
tain respects. To correct and remedy these violations, we
have been directed to take certain actions and to post this
notice.
WE WILL NOT recognize and WE WILL withhold recog-
nition from Consolidated Independent Union, Local
951, as the exclusive representative of our Plymouth,
Michigan, employees, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, until said labor organization is certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the representa-
tive of those employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect at our Plymouth store to our
agreement, which expired on August 9, 1975, with the
above-named labor organization, or to any extension,
renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or any
superseding agreement, until that Union is certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the representa-
tive of said employees.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in Consolidat-
ed Independent Union, Local 951, or in any other la-
bor organization of our employees, by compelling our
employees, to become or remain members of such or-
ganization, and WE WILL NOT discriminate in any other
manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition thereof, except to the
extent authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Consolidated In-
dependent Union, Local 951, make whole the employ-
ees of our Plymouth store, with interest, for dues and
initiation fees paid to the above-named labor organi-
zation.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent those rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to re-
frain from becoming or remaining members of the above-
named or any other labor organization.
MEIJER, INC., d/b/a MEIJER's THRIFTY ACRES
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides were represented by their
attorneys and presented evidence, it has been found that
we have violated the National Labor Relations Act in cer-
tain respects. To correct and remedy these violations, we
have been directed to take certain actions and to post this
notice.
WE WILL NOT give effect to our agreement which ex-
pired on August 9, 1975, with Meijer, Inc., d/b/a
Meijer's Thrifty Acres, at their Plymouth, Michigan,
store.
WE WILL NOT, at said Plymouth, Michigan, store, en-
ter into, give effect to, or enforce any extension, re-
newal, modification, or supplement thereof, or any su-
perseding agreement, until we shall have been duly
certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the
representative of the said employees of Meijer, Inc.
WE WILL NOT cause, or attempt to cause, Meijer, Inc.,
to discriminate against employees in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally, with Meijer, Inc.,
make whole, with interest, the employees of their
Plymouth store for dues and initiation fees paid by
them to us.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
the employees of said Employer in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, except to
the extent those rights may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as
a condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT UNION, LOCAL 951