Oleson's Foods No. 4, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 543 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

OLESON'S FOODS NO. 4, INC. 543
Oleson's Foods No. 4, Inc., Oleson 's Foods No. 5, Inc.,
Oleson's Foods No. 6, Inc ., Gerald W. Oleson and
Frances M. Oleson , Co-Partners, Oleson's Food
Stores, Gerald W. Oleson and Frances M. Oleson,
Co-Partners, Oleson 's Variety Store , and Local
539, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO and
Retail Store Employees Union , Local No. 11 , Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO.
Cases 7-CA-5574 (1), 7-RC-7314, 7-CA-5574
(2), and 7-RC-7313
September 25, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On February 17, 1967, Trial Examiner Morton
D. Friedman issued his Decision in the above-enti-
tled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion . The Trial Examiner further found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter,
the Respondent and the Retail Clerks filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and support-
ing briefs. The General Counsel and the Meat Cut-
ters did not file any exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer'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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following
modifications and exceptions:
1. The Trial Examiner recommended dismissal
of the 8(a)(1) allegations of the complaint insofar as
they pertained to the Respondent's polling of its
employees. The Union excepts to such recommen-
dation. We do not deem it necessary, however, to
pass upon this issue in the circumstances of this
case. The polling in issue occurred on March 26,
1966; the hearing in this case was held in October
1966; and the Trial Examiner issued his Decision
on February 17, 1967. Subsequent to all these
events, the Board, on June 26, 1967, issued its Sup-
plemental Decision in Struksnes Construction Co.,
Inc., 165 NLRB 1062, in which it modified and
restated the criteria applicable to a polling issue
such as that involved in this case. The parties herein
have not, of course, had an opportunity to address
themselves to such modified criteria; and, in any
event, a finding that the polling violated Section
8(a)(1) would not substantially affect the order in
this case.
However, as the ballots of the poll were privately
counted by representatives of the Respondent in
the absence of any other observers, we conclude
that the announced result of the poll is not reliable
evidence that the Retail Clerks did not enjoy
majority support; nor is it a reliable basis upon
which to predicate a finding that the Respondent
had cause for a good-faith doubt concerning the
Retail Clerks' majority status.
2. The Trial Examiner found that the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act on and after
April 28, 1966. The Respondent excepts to that
finding on the ground that the Retail Clerks did not
request bargaining on that date. Apparently, the
only evidence of such a request, as the Respondent
points out, was a statement made to Respondent's
representative, at a meeting discussing an election,
that matters could be made easier if Respondent
"would just go ahead and recognize [the Retail
Clerks ] and not have to go through this long drawn-
out process of an election." We need not decide,
however, whether such a comment standing alone
is a sufficient demand to support an 8(a)(5) viola-
tion, for the statement did not in fact stand alone.
There is no question but that the Retail Clerks
made a clear and unequivocal demand for recogni-
tion on March 25, and did not thereafter withdraw
such demand. In fact, the only relevant event inter-
vening between March 25 and April 28 was the
Respondent's polling of its employees, which can
hardly be held to have abated the demand for recog-
nition; and which, as we have concluded above, is
in the circumstances here an inadequate basis for
concluding that the Respondent's refusal to bargain
was not unlawful. Consequently, we find there was,
as of March 25, an outstanding demand for recogni-
tion, and that on April 28 the Retail Clerks in sug-
gesting recognition as an alternative to an election
was simply reasserting such demand. Accordingly,
we find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that
the Respondent's refusal to recognize the Retail
Clerks on and after April 28 violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. I
Inasmuch as we have found that the Respondent
unlawfully refused to bargain with the Retail
' Even were we to find no violation of Section 8(a)(5), we would,
nonetheless , find that a bargaining order is required in order to effectuate
the statutory purpose in this case The Union did possess majority status,
and Respondent did engage in unlawful conduct which prevented a fair
election. Therefore, a bargaining order is necessary as the proper remedy
to preserve the status quo ante, and to prevent Respondent from benefit-
ing from its own unlawful conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) See
Northwest Engineering Company, 158 NLRB 624
167 NLRB No. 69
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Clerks, we shall order that its petition in Case
7-RC-7313 be dismissed.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Oleson's Foods No. 4,
Inc., Oleson's Foods No. 5, Inc., Oleson's Foods
No. 6, Inc., Gerald W. Oleson and Frances M.
Oleson, Co-Partners, d/b/a Oleson's Food Stores,
and Gerald W. Oleson and Frances M. Oleson, Co-
Partners, d/b/a Oleson's Variety Store, their of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as herein modified:
1. Delete that part of the last paragraph of the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order to the ex-
tent that it refers Case 7-RC-7313 back 'to the
Regional Director for Region 7.
2. Delete from paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order that part thereof
which reads "to be furnished" and substitute
therefor "on forms provided."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for cer-
tification of representative filed in Case
7-RC-7313 be, and it hereby is, dismissed, and that
all proceedings held thereunder be, and they hereby
are, vacated.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MORTON D. FRIEDMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a
charge filed in Case 7-CA-5574(l) on May 24, 1966, by
Local 539, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Meat Cutters, and a charge filed in Case
7-CA-5574(2) on May 24, 1966, by Retail Store Em-
ployees Union, Local No. 11, Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO, herein called the Retail Clerks,
the Regional Director for Region 7 of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a con-
solidated complaint on July 27, 1966, on behalf of the
General Counsel of the Board against the above-named
Respondents, herein called the Respondent or the Com-
pany, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C.
Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act.' In its duly filed
answer to the aforesaid complaint, the Respondent, while
admitting certain of the allegations thereof, denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to an order dated July 27, 1966, issued by the
said Regional Director pursuant to Section 102.33 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the
proceeding referred to above was consolidated with
Cases 7-RC-7313 and 7-RC-7314, wherein separate
' Before the issuance of the complaint herein, the Meat Cutters
withdrew its 8(a)(5) charge against the Respondent Thus, the only
representation petitions in behalf of specified units of the
Respondent's employees were filed by the Meat Cutters
and Retail Clerks and a secret ballot was conducted on
May 17, 1966, pursuant to separate consent-election
agreements. On May 24, 1966, the Meat Cutters and the
Retail Clerks timely filed separate but identical objec-
tions to the election which were investigated by the said
Regional Director who dismissed some of the objections
and referred others for the purpose of hearing, ruling, and
decision to a Trial Examiner in his order of consolidation
heretofore referred to.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing on the consolidated cases
was held before me, at Traverse City, Michigan. All
parties were represented and were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to
present oral argument, and to file briefs. Briefs were filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon con-
sideration of the entire record in this case, including the
briefs of the parties, and upon my observation of each of
the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Oleson's Foods No. 4, Inc., Oleson's Foods No. 5,
Inc., and Oleson's Foods No. 6, Inc., are Michigan cor-
porations. Gerald W. Oleson and Frances M. Oleson are
co-partners doing business under the trade names and
styles of Oleson's Food Stores and Oleson's Variety
Stores. The aforesaid corporations and the aforesaid part-
nerships are affiliated businesses with common officers,
ownership, directors, and operators and constitute a sin-
gle intergrated business enterprise wherein the directors
and operators centrally formulate and administer a com-
mon labor policy for the said Companies affecting the em-
ployees of the said Companies.
Accordingly, I find that all of the named Companies
and the partnerships constitute a single employer for the
purposes of the Act.
Respondent maintains its principal office and place of
business at 901 West Front Street, Traverse City,
Michigan. It maintains other places of business in
Traverse City, Cadillac, and Charlevoix, Michigan. At
these places of business Respondent has been and is en-
gaged in the retail sale and distribution of foods, meats,
fruits, vegetables, dry goods, and related products.
During the calendar year 1965, a representative period,
in the course and conduct of its business, the Respondent
did a gross volume of business exceeding $2,000,000.
During the same period of time, Respondent purchased
for its stores food and nonfood items and other goods and
materials valued in excess of $500,000 from another en-
terprise which had received the said goods and materials
directly from points located outside the State of
Michigan.
Accordingly, it is conceded, and I find, that Respond-
ent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It is admitted , and I find , that the Meat Cutters and the
Retail Clerks are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
refusal-to-bargain charge with which this Decision is concerned is that al-
leged in we complaint on behalf of the Retail Clerks.
OLESON's FOODS NO. 4, INC. 545
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES main office in Traverse City on March 25. There they
A. The Issues
Briefly stated, the events which formed the basis for
the charges filed herein began with the Meat Cutters and
Retail Clerks commencement of a campaign to organize
the Respondent's employees on March 6, 1966. On
March 25, 1966,2 both Unions made a demand upon the
Respondent for recognition claiming that they had signed
up a majority of the Respondent's employees in their
respective units. At the date of the demand, the Respond-
ent neither rejected nor accepted the Unions' request for
recognition, but the following day, March 26, the
Respondent conducted a poll of its employees regarding
their union sympathies. A short time thereafter, approxi-
mately 1 week, the Respondent rejected the Unions'
request and both Unions thereafter filed their petitions
for representations as heretofore set forth.
On April 28, 1966, at a meeting in the office of the
Board with regard to a possible consent-election agree-
ment , the Retail Clerks renewed its demand upon the
Respondent for recognition. Thereafter, as set forth earli-
er in this Decision, the consent-election agreements were
entered into. Between that date and the date of the elec-
tion , which was held on May 17, 1966, the various super-
visors of the Respondent's allegedly committed acts of in-
terference, coercion, and restraint. Thereafter, at the
election, the Respondent was successful. Subsequent to
the election and the publishing of its results, the Union
filed exceptions to the election and the charges which
constitute the basis of the complaint herein.
Thus, the issues framed by the pleadings and by the
foregoing events are as follows:
1. Did the poll conducted by the Respondent after the
Unions' demand for recognition constitute interference,
coercion, and restraint?
2. Did the Respondent, by its supervisors, otherwise
interfere with, coerce, and restrain its employees regard-
ing their Section 7 rights?
3. Did the Retail Clerks have majority status among
the Respondent's employees on the dates of the demands
for recognition? In conjunction with this issue , were some
or all of the designation cards upon which the Retail
Clerks bases its majority claim invalid by reason of
misrepresentation and fraud?
4. If the Retail Clerks have majority status, was the
Respondent's refusal to recognize the Retail Clerks based
on a good-faith doubt as to the Retail Clerks alleged
majority?
5. In connection with the foregoing issue and the
remedy, if an unlawful refusal is found, did the Unions file
timely and meritorious objections?
B. The Events
1. The organizational drive- the demands and the refusal
As heretofore related, the Retail Clerks and the Meat
Cutters began a simultaneous drive to organize the
Respondent's employees in separate, traditional units on
March 6, 1966. After several weeks of campaigning,
Frank G. Kuberski, secretary-treasurer of the Retail
Clerks, together with several other Retail Clerks and
Meat Cutters representatives, called at the Respondent's
found Gerald Oleson , Sr., the Respondent 's principal of-
ficer and founder . After introductions were completed,
Kuberski told Oleson the reason for the visit, represent-
ing that the Unions had signed a majority of the Respond-
ent's employees and asking for recognition . Oleson in-
formed the representatives that he would have to talk to
his son , Gerald Oleson , Jr., who Oleson claimed was
running the business . Oleson , Sr., then made a telephone
call and shortly thereafter Gerald Oleson , Jr., together
with the Respondent 's counsel and Don Oleson , another
son, appeared at the office . Kuberski told the younger
Olesons and Respondent 's counsel , that the Union had
been at the homes of the employees and the majority of
the employees had signed up. He requested that the
Respondent go to a card check to prove the majority
through an impartial person . No offer was made to show
cards to the Respondent.
Respondent's counsel answered stating that he was the
spokesman for the Respondent , told the union represent-
atives that he was not opposed to a card check, having
recently been involved in one for some other client, but
that he had had no chance to confer with the Respondent
and he would have to speak with his client regarding such
a card check. After some further discussion one of the
representatives of the Unions asked counsel whether he
was denying a card check at that time and counsel an-
swered that he was not, but that he would give them his
answer the first of the following week. This ended the
conversation and the union representatives left the
Respondent's office. Also during the conversation, coun-
sel told the union representatives, "we don't doubt your
majority but I cannot answer at this time what the Com-
pany's position would be." He also explained to the union
representatives that he would be out of town on a hearing
for a time.
After the union representatives and company counsel
had left, the three Olesons talked among themselves and
discussed the Union's demands. They recalled that there
had been a Board election among the Respondent's em-
ployees concerning the Retail Clerks some 7 years before
and that the union had lost by a large majority. In view of
this fact, the Olesons decided to poll their employees, or
to put it in the words of Gerald Oleson, Sr., to "have an
opinion from the employees."
The following day, March 26, despite a telegram from
Kuberski asking the Olesons not to run such a poll and
telling them that a poll was a violation of the Act, the
Olesons conducted a poll among the employees in their
several stores. The details of this poll and the manner in
which it was conducted are hereinafter set forth. Suffice
it to say at this time, the results of the poll, as counted by
the Olesons themselves, without any outside assistance
or supervision, resulted in 67 employees voting against
the Unions and 33 voting for the Unions, with 15 not vot-
ing.
On March 28, 1966, Kuberski received a letter from
company counsel to the effect that he would be out of
town for the following week. Kuberski attempted to con-
tact counsel before April 1. Finally, on April 1 or 2, com-
pany counsel, who had returned to Traverse City from a
hearing in another part of the State, told Kuberski that he
had not yet talked to Respondent's officers about recog-
nizing the Union. Approximately a week later, company
2 All dates set forth herein are for the year 1966.
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
counsel finally called Kuberski and told the latter that the
Respondent would not recognize the Unions because the
Respondent felt that on the basis of the poll taken by the
Respondent, the Unions did not possess majority status.
Thereafter, on April 28, 1966, subsequent to the filing
of a separate petition by the Retail Clerks and the Meat
Cutters, a consent-election conference was held in the of-
fice of company counsel at Traverse City. At that meet-
ing, Kuberski made a second request to the Respondent
for recognition in the form of a suggestion to counsel that
the matter could be made easier if the Respondent were
to recognize the Union thereby obviating the necessity
for an election. His suggestion was refused. Thereafter,
an election was conducted by the Board as- heretofore
noted, and both Unions lost the election.3
2. The polling of the employees
As noted above, on March 26 the Respondent polled
its employees. About 10 a.m. on that day the Trav-
erse City, Front Street Store Manager Don Oleson
informed employee Russell Lee that there would be a
meeting that evening at the Garfield Road store in
Traverse City where the employees would vote on
whether they wanted the Union. Lee asked Don Oleson
what the latter hoped to accomplish by this polling. He
asked Oleson whether the latter did not think that the
cards which the employees had signed were enough of an
indication that employees desired a union. Oleson an-
swered that the Respondent did not feel that it was
enough and that "they wanted to find out for them-
selves."
About 6:30 p.m. of that day, the employees of the three
Traverse City stores, with the exception of some who
refused to attend, gathered at the Garfield Road store and
the polling commenced. When the employees were as-
sembled, Gerald Oleson, Sr., addressed them and ex-
plained that the Unions had approached him and the
representatives had told him that the Unions had a
majority of the employees signed up on cards and that a
majority of the employees wanted the Unions to
represent them. Oleson said that he and his wife did not
believe it and wanted to find out for themselves. Then
Oleson explained to the employees that he wanted what
was good for them and for the Olesons too, and that if the
employees voted "yes," the Respondent would accept
the Union. He also told them that Respondent did not
want to know how any individual voted. He further ex-
plained to the employees that he had white slips of paper
and pencils for everyone and wanted the employees to
either write "yes" or "no" on a slip of paper and place the
marked paper in the ballot boxes.
The boxes were placed on tables at one end of the room
and were covered with brown paper. One box was
lablabeled "Meat" and the other "Grocery." Oleson
remained present during the balloting. However, no at-
tempt was made by either Mr. Oleson or Mrs. Oleson,
who were present, to influence the voting in any way.
When the balloting was over Oleson took the ballot
boxes back to his office and started out for Cadillac,
Michigan, where the firm had another store. There, the
store closed late and the polling took place around 9:15
p.m. after the store was closed.4
At the Cadillac store, the poll was conducted in the
front of the store, near the office and t":e cash registers.
The two boxes were placed on tables and were brown
paper wrapped and labeled in the same fashion as were
the boxes in the polling which took place at the Traverse
City store. Oleson handed out pieces of paper and pencils
and told the employees that he would like them to vote for
or against the Union whichever they chose. One em-
ployee, Frances Tappe, who was employed in the
delicatessen department, did not know where to place her
ballot and Oleson, Sr., told her to place it in the ballot box
marked "Meat." Again, no attempt was made to influence
the vote of the Cadillac employees. Oleson told the em-
ployees that the ballot was for the purpose of determining
whether he should recognize the Union. He also told the
employees that if they chose the Union he would recog-
nize it and deal with it.5
Much the same routine was followed at the poll taken
at the Charlevoix, Michigan, store. There the poll was
conducted by Gerald Oleson, Jr. He passed out blank
slips on which the employees were to write "yes" or "no"
and instructed them to drop their respective ballots into
one of the three boxes set up for meat, variety, and food
departments. Supervisor Bathke was also present, as was
Store Manager James Wilson. Oleson, Jr., Wilson, and
Bathke stood 10 to 15 feet from the boxes when the bal-
loting occurred,. Before the voting occurred, Oleson told
the employees of the demands for recognition by the
Retail Clerks and the Meat Cutters Union. There was no
attempt in any way to influence the employees and
Oleson, Jr., explained to the employees that if the em-
ployees decided that they wanted the Union, the Com-
pany would accept the Union.6 -
At the hearing herein, Gerald Oleson, Sr., was asked
whether he had given the employees any assurances at
the time of the poll in the two stores where he conducted
the poll that the employees would not be discriminated
against if they voted in favor of the Union. His answer
was in the negative. Nor did he tell his employees that
they had a right not to cast a vote if they so chose.
When the polling at the stores in all three cities was
completed, the boxes with the ballots were taken by the
Olesons to Traverse City where they were counted by
Oleson, Sr., his wife, and their son. No third party was
present. On the basis of that count, Gerald Oleson, Sr.,
wrote up a tally of ballots which showed that, as noted
above, 33 employees voted for the Union, 67 voted
against, and 15 employees were absent. Although this
tally of ballots was broken down into meat and grocery,
no separate total tally was made with regard to the em-
ployees who would have been in the Meat Cutters unit or
the employees who would have been in the Retail Clerks
unit.
3. The activities of various supervisors- interference,
coercion , and restraint
As heretofore set forth, on April 14, 1966, the Retail
Clerks filed a petition for an election among the em-
3 Most of the foregoing is taken from the testimony of Frank Kuberski,
the Retail Clerks secretary-treasurer, which testimony was not con-
troverted in any material way by that of Gerald Oleson, Sr , who testified
to some of the same events on behalf of the Respondent Accordingly, Ku-
berski 's testimony is credited
* All of the foregoing from the credited testimony of employee Russell
Lee and Gerald Oleson, Sr
5 From the credited testimony of Frances Tappe and Gerald Oleson,
Sr.
s From the credited testimony of former employee John Sladek.
OLESON's FOODS NO. 4, INC. 547
plyees of the Respondent as did the Meat Cutters.
Thereafter, events occurred involving various supervisors
of the Respondent which the General Counsel and the
Charging Parties claim to have been violative of Section
8(a)(1).
On May 1, 1966, employee Gary Zeitler asked Store
Manager James Wilson for a raise in pay. Wilson told
Zeitler that although he thought the latter was doing
work for which he should receive a raise in pay, with
"the Union breathing down their neck there wasn't
much he could do about it."
Wilson further stated that he would think the matter
over and try to get the raise for Zeitler. The conversation
then switched to other matters and, as, Zeitler was leav-
ing the room, he asked Wilson what the latter thought
about the Union, Wilson answered, according to Zeitler,
"if the Union got in there we would have to work a lot
harder and faster but ... it had its good points and bad
points."7
Several days later, on May 4, 1966, Wilson, who was
the manager of a Charlevoix store, was engaged in a con-
versation with employee John Sladek. Sladek stated that
the date had been set for the Board election and Wilson
agreed and stated, "If I don't have ulcers by then...."
Sladek answered that the Union would not affect Wil-
son in any way whereupon Wilson accused Sladek of hav-
ing been brainwashed and having listened to union
representatives. Sladek responded to the effect that if the
Union did get in and the employees received certain
benefits, or perhaps a raise, Wilson would automatically
get a similar raise and similar benefits. Wilson did not
agree . Then he added that if the Union did come in, he
would lose a good man. Sladek turned to Wilson and
asked him who that would be and Wilson answered
"You." Wilson further stated that the reason for this was
that if the Union came in, management was going to have
to cut down on time and that the first ones to go would be
the part-time employees. Sladek, being a part-time em-
ployee, would thus have been affected.8
Again, on May 13, 1966, employee Donald Black
asked Wilson if the latter would give Black time off to at-
tend a concert that evening. Wilson thought the matter
over afor a brief period and finally told Black that he
guessed Black could have the time off but added that
things would be different if the Union came in. Wilson ad-
monished Black to think about the matter and "not to
jump into anythirg right away.""
In early May 1966, Bob Coon, store manager of the
Cadillac store, engaged delicatessen employee Frances
Tappe in a conversation. During the conversation Coon
told Tappe that if the Union came in, the employees
would have to punch in and out for coffeebreaks. This,
evidently, was contrary to the practice in the store at that
time.10
On May 9, 1966, Norman Foster, store manager of the
Garfield Street store in Traverse City, had a conversation
with employee James Spinniken. Foster told Spinniken
that if the latter ever had a chance to speak to any of the
carryout boys, to let them know that if the Union came in,
their hours would be cut to a bare minimum.1 t
On May 17, 1966, Joyce Ann Wells, an employee at
the Charlevoix variety store, was having lunch in a
restaurant near the store when Theodore Bathke, super-
visor of nonfood items for all of the Respondent's stores,
entered and sat next to Wells. They discussed the Board
election to be held that day. Bathke told Wells that he did
not believe the Union would win the election but that if it
did the Respondent would do one of these things: (1)
Oleson (probably referring to Gerald Oleson, Sr.) would
either sell the variety store, (2) there might be a strike,
or (3) he, Bathke, would possibly have to cut his help
down to three. At the time there were six employees in
the Charlevoix variety store.12
It should be noted, in connection with all of the forego-
ing, that the testimony with regard to the activities of the
various supervisors related, was given without any con-
tradiction whatsoever on the part of any of the Respond-
ent's witnesses. Because the testimony was uncon-
troverted and I observed nothing in the conduct or
demeanor of any of these witnesses on the stand which
would cause me to doubt their credibility, I have credited
all of this testimony.
C. Analysis and Concluding Findings
1. The polling of the employees
Assuming that the Retail Clerks possessed majority
status on March 25, the date it first requested recognition
from the Respondent, whether Respondent's refusal to
recognize and bargain with the Retail Clerks was unlaw-
ful depends, in the final analysis, upon whether the
Respondent engaged in acts of interference, coercion, and
restraint of such a flagrant nature as to vitiate Respond-
ent's claimed good-faith doubt of the Union's majority
status.13 Thus, the initial inquiry to be made here must be
directed to the alleged acts of interference. The first such
act to be considered is the polling by the Respondent of
its employees on March 26, the day after the demand for
recognition by both the Retail Clerks and the Meat Cut-
ters.
According to the uncontroverted testimony of Gerald
Oleson, Sr., which I credit, some 7 years before March
25, 1966, the Retail Clerks had sought to organize his em-
ployees and, in a Board-conducted election, had received
only 7 out of some 30 votes. At that time, the Retail
Clerks had cards from a majority of the employees. Thus,
the Oleson family, when confronted by the March 25 de-
mand, decided to get the opinion of their employees as to
whether the latter desired the Unions to represent them.
There ensued from this decision the polling described
fully above.
In conjunction with this polling, the employees were in-
formed, before the actual distribution and marking of the
paper ballots, that the Olesons were doubtful as to the
Unions' claimed majority and wanted the opinion of the
employees, and that if the employees wanted the Unions,
the Respondent would recognize them. In connection
therewith, no formal assurances were given the em-
ployees that there would be no reprisals if the employees
selected the Unions. However, there was no attempt to
influence the employees in any manner whatsoever nor
were antiunion sentiments expressed by any of the
' From the uncontroverted testimony of employee Zeitler which I
credit.
From the uncontroverted testimony of John Sladek.
From the credited , uncontroverted testimony of Black
11 From the uncontroverted testimony of Frances Tappe
" From the credited, uncontroverted testimony of Spinniken
12 From the uncontroverted testimony of Joyce Ann Wells, which is
credited
13 Hammond & Irving, Incorporated, 154 N LRB 1071
310-5410-70-36
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Olesons or any management representative contem-
poraneously with the taking of the ballot.
Nor was the balloting conducted in as safeguarded a
manner as would have been a secret ballot conducted
under ideal, laboratory conditions. Thus, management
representatives were present in the same room with the
employees during the balloting, although the testimony
showed that such representatives did not in any way seek
to ascertain how the employees were voting. The em-
ployees were in each others presence when the ballots
were marked. Also, as pointed out by the General Coun-
sel, the ballots were later counted by the Olesons, en
famile, with no one else present.
Nevertheless, despite this lack of precaution which
might have been taken by more experienced poll takers,
I find and conclude that the polling was not violative and
was a legitimate attempt by the Olesons to ascertain
whether the Respondent should grant recognition to the
Unions. In the first place, the interrogation of employees
for the legitimate purpose ofascertaining whether to
recognize a demanding union does not have to be by a
secret ballot conducted under laboratory conditions."
Additionally, the poll was taken in an atmosphere free
from contemporaneous unfair labor practices or expres-
sions of antiunion sentiment on the part of the Olesons or
any other Respondent officials. Indeed, no attempts were
made to influence the employees' sentiments and the
latter were assured that if they selected the Unions, the
Respondent would offer recognition. These factors, when
considered in the light of the Olesons' attempt, however
amateurish, to make the balloting secret, fully demon-
strate that the employees' choice was made free from any
threat of reprisal. The mere failure to mouth words to that
effect does not render unlawful that which is otherwise
lawful under the circumstances here demonstrated.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the poll was
taken in noncoercive circumstances for the express pur-
pose of determining the validity of the Unions' claim to
majority status. In the light of the circumstance that the
Respondent had earlier experienced when the Retail
Clerks authorization cards did not, in fact, reflect the true
intentions of Respondent's employees, I, therefore,
further find and conclude that the Respondent did not
violate Section 8(a)(1) in the taking of the poll.15
2. Interference, coercion, and restraint
As related above, after the consent-election agreement
was signed and prior to the election itself, various super-
visors of the Respondent engaged in the activity set forth
in detail above. With regard to that activity, I find that
when on May 1, Store Manager Wilson threatened em-
ployee Gary Zeitler that if the Union got in the em-
ployees would have to work a lot harder and faster, he
thereby unlawfully threatened Zeitler with a reprisal.
When Wilson, on May 2, told employee John Sladek
that if the Union came in, they were going to have to cut
down on working time and the first one to go would be the
part-time employees and then said that he would lose a
good man and identified Sladek as that good man, Wilson
threatened Sladek with the loss of employment in reprisal
and in violation of the Act.
When, on May 13, Wilson threatened employee Black
with change of timeoff policy if the Union would come in,
he engaged in activity constituting threat and coercion.
When, early in May, Store Manager Bob Coon told em-
ployee Frances Tappe that employees would have to ring
out or sign out before coffeebreak, he threatended the em-
ployee with more onerous working conditions in reprisal.
Additionally, when, on May 9, Store Manager Norman
Foster told employee Spinniken to inform the carryout
boys that hours would be cut to a bare minimum if the
Union came in, his statement constituted a threat of
reprisal.
Finally, when Nonfood Manager Bathke told employee
Joyce Wells that if the Union came in, the Olesons would
either sell the variety store, or that there might be a strike
or that he would have to cut the number of employees in
the variety store down to three in contrast to the then
present six, he unlawfully threatened the employees with
regard to the tenure of their employment.
All of the foregoing acts of the various supervisors con-
stitute interference, coercion, and restraint in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act within Board precedent.16
3. The refusal to bargain
a. The appropriate unit
It is conceded and I find that all regular full-time and
regular part-time employees of the Respondent at its
stores located at 901 West Front Street, 1101 South Gar-
field, and 124 East State Street, Traverse City; 112 An-
trim Street and 116 Antrim Street, Charlevoix; and 211
South Mitchell Street, Cadillac, Michigan, but excluding
store managers, assistant store managers, meat depart-
ment employees, confidential employees, office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
b. The majority issue
As hereinafter concluded in more detail, I find that the
Respondent had a reasonable basis for its belief that the
Retail Clerks did not possess majority status on March
25, the date of the first demand by the Unions. Ac-
cordingly, I need not determine whether the Retail Clerks
did possess sufficient, valid authorization cards on that
date to establish that it possessed representative status at
that time. However, in view of my further findings, set
forth below, it becomes necessary to determine the Retail
Clerks status as of April 28, 1966, the date of the second
demand and refusal.
According to a list of employees submitted by Respond-
ent, between April 23 and May 17 there were 96 em-
ployees on the payroll at one time or another. However,
at the hearing, the parties stipulated that six of the per-
sons listed were excluded as not having been employed
during the critical period before April 28. Accordingly,
the number or individuals agreed upon is 90. However,
there is a dispute as to three other individuals.
The record reveals that employee Sam Wright worked
before and after the week of April 28 but did not work
14 See, e . g, Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591, Briggs IGA
Foodliner, 146 NLRB 443.
"Blue Flash Express, supra, Briggs IGA Foodliner, supra, Cameo
Lingerie, Inc, 148 NLRB 535, 538
'6 My Store, Inc, 147 NLRB 145, Dominic J. Calabrese, tia United
Store Fixture Mfg. Co, 141 NLRB 394, Willard's Shop Rite Markets,
Inc, 132 NLRB 1146; Plaskolite, Inc, 134 NLRB 754
OLESON'S FOODS NO. 4, INC. 549
during that week. Wright testified, without contradition,
that he had asked for and had been given permission to
take leave by his store manager in order to participate in
school athletic activities. Accordingly, I find that Wright
was an employee during the critical period and shall in-
clude him in the unit. As to the other two employees in
dispute , Jo Ann Taylor and Audrey Mousseau were not
employed during the critical period. In both cases they
had left Respondent's employ prior to the week including
April 28. Accordingly, I shall not include them in the
unit.
Thus, on the critical date of April 28, the unit consisted
of 89 employees.
The General Counsel introduced a total of 51 authen-
ticated authorization cards. However, as of April 28,
1966, of the 51 card signers, 3, Dennis Chapman, David
Maxson , and Jo Ann Taylor, were not employed. Ac-
cordingly, for April 28, the adjusted number of cards is
48. Thus, on April 28, 1966, the Retail Clerks had cards
from a majority of the employees, having obtained 48
authorization cards from a total of 89 employees.
However, the Respondent contends that six of the
authorization cards were fatally defective by reason of
misrepresentation by the union agent soliciting the cards.
In each case, according to Respondent, the reason given
by the agent for the signing of the card was that the sole
purpose for the card was to obtain an election.
The first employee to testify, whose card the Respond-
ent claims is invalid, was Richard L. Murphy. Murphy
admitted that he had signed a card and that he had read
the card thoroughly before signing the same. The card
Murphy signed, as all the others, was purely an authoriza-
tion card which made no mention of an election. He
testified that he was solicited by Vince Morand and
another union representative. Before Murphy signed the
card, he was told by the representatives what the Union
could do for him, how much money he was going to make,
and other benefits. They further told him that if he signed
this card, it would eliminate the initiation fee. Murphy
also testified that later on at other times he observed the
Union using what he felt were pressure methods.
I find nothing in Murphy's testimony which would in-
dicate that misrepresentations were made to him to in-
duce him to sign the card. Furthermore, Murphy read and
signed the card after due deliberation. Thus, nothing oc-
curred during the union presentation that would have in-
validated the card Murphy signed. Moreover, the Board
had held that an offer to waive initiation fees constitutes
no improper influence on an employee 's decision to sign
an authorization card.17 Accordingly, I shall include
Murphy's card in the total cards submitted by the
Respondent.
Robert D. Blevins testified that he was also ap-
proached by Morand who sought to talk him into signing
a card. Morand and another union organizer with him told
Blevins about the union benefits and then told him to sign
a card in order to have enough cards to have a vote. How-
ever, Blevins, admitted that he had read the card before
he signed it. Furthermore, Morand, denied that he had
told Blevins that the sole purpose of the card was to get a
vote. Under all of the circumstances, including the facts
that Blevins admitted reading the card which contained a
simple and readily understandable present delegation of
bargaining authority to the Union, and in view of the fact
that Blevins admitted that the conversation with regard to
the card prior to the signing thereof involved, the
representations by Morand of numerous union benefits,
I find and conclude that the representations made to
Blevins were not solely on the basis of "getting a vote"
but were made also for the purposes of inducing Blevins
to authorize the Union to represent him. Accordingly, I
shall include his card in the total.18
Much the same can be said of the signing of an
authorization card by Joseph Ochko. Ochko admitted
that he had read and signed the authorization card. He
also admitted that before he did so Morand had told him
about the good points the Union had. Among these were
benefits of various natures, insurance and more pay.
Ochko admitted that these possibilities sounded very
good to him. He also admitted that these representations
were made to him before he signed the card. Accordingly,
and for the reasons stated in the case of Blevins, I accept
the card of employee Ochko.
Although employee Betty Lou Otberg was a little more
emphatic in her testimony in stating that Morand
represented to her that the purpose of the signing of the
card would be to bring a vote and that the card would not
be seen by anybody else whatsoever, I find that, as in the
cases of Blevins and Ochko, Otberg was told about many
of the union advantages and benefits before she signed
the card. She also admitted that she read the card before
signing it . Among the benefits which were represented to
her, according to her own testimony, were hospital
benefits, insurance benefits, and more beneficial con-
tracts generally. She even was shown contracts which
were signed with other supermarket chains. Although Ot-
berg testified that Morand told her that the only reason
they wanted the card was to bring it to a vote, I neverthe-
less believe, in view of all the circumstances and in the
light of Morand's denial, that Otberg was induced to sign
the card by reascn of the benefits as well as for the pur-
poses of a vote. Accordingly, I shall include her card in
the total.
Although employee Violet Meachum testified that
when she was visited by Union Representatives Brown,
Soncrant, and Sliver on five different occasions, she was
told that they were there to have her sign a card so that
the "Union would come for an election," in her pretrial
statement given to a Board agent , Meachum mentioned
that Paul McNutt, a Retail Clerks business agent, in-
duced her to sign a card either for an election or "to get
the Company to recognize the Union." In view of this ob-
vious conflict between Meachum's testimony at the hear-
ing and her pretrial statement, I do not find that Meachum
was a sufficiently reliable witness to conclude from her
testimony that she was told that the only purpose for sig-
ning the card was to have an election. Accordingly, I shall
also include her card in the total.
Former employee Donald Zientek testified that the
Retail Clerks solicitors requested him to sign an
authorization card so that he could receive more benefits
in addition to getting a big enough majority to have an
election. He admitted on cross-examination that they
asked him to sign the card for more than one reason. This
contrasted to his direct testimony to the effect that the
union representatives asked him to sign a card for the pur-
pose of having an election. Accordingly, and for reasons
hereinabove recited, I find that representations to Zien-
19 See Edro Corporation and Anasco Gloves, Inc , 147 NLRB 1167, 11 See Abrasive Salvage Company , Inc, 127 NLRB 381, 393, modified
affd 345 F.2d 264 (C A. 2) 285 F 2d 552 (C.A 7)
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tek were not made solely on the basis of having an elec-
tion. Accordingly, I shall also include his card in the total.
In view of the fact that I have hereinabove included all
six of the cards which the Respondent has contested, I
find that on April 28 the Union had a majority of 48
authorization cards out of a possible 89. Accordingly, I
further find that the Union enjoyed majority status as of
the date of the demand, April 28.
c. The unlawful refusal
Hereinabove, I have found that the Respondent's
polling of its employees was lawful and was conducted
solely for the purpose of determining whether the
Respondent should recognize the Union. As recounted
earlier in this Decision, it is clear that the Respondent,
without having seen the representation cards, and without
any contemporaneous antiunion statements, and in the
light of its earlier experience with the Retail Clerks, de-
cided to take the polls so that Respondent's officials
could clarify the doubts which they entertained. The poll
being noncoercive and not accompanied by antiunion
statements or contemporaneous unfair labor practices,
the Respondent had the right to rely on the results of that
poll. Accordingly, its first refusal to bargain with the
Union coming shortly after the poll was taken was
reasonable and I find nothing in Respondent's actions or
statements from which it can be inferred that the Re-
spondent refused to bargain at that time in order to gain
time to destroy the Retail Clerks majority or to reject the
collective-bargaining principle. Therefore, I find and
conclude, that with-regard to the March 25 demand, the
Respondent did not unlawfully refuse to bargain.
However, with regard to the Respondent's continued
refusal to recognize the Retail Clerks following the de-
mand of April 28, I come to an opposite conclusion. The
Respondent's refusal on April 28 to recognize and bar-
gain with the Retail Clerks must be examined in the light
of all of the relevant facts including the conduct of the
Respondent, the sequence of events, and the time lapse
between the refusal and the unlawful conduct.19
Only 3 days after the demand, the interference, coer-
cion, and restraint imposed by the Respondent's various
supervisors began. In all, a total of three store managers
out of the Respondent's six stores were involved in these
unfair labor practices. In addition, the Respondent's su-
pervisor of all nonfood items for all the stores threatened
that the Respondent would close the store or that the em-
ployees would be laid off if the Unions came in. I cannot
consider these unfair labor practices, as urged by the
Respondent, to have been so isolated as to be of little con-
sequence and of little effect upon the employees. At least
three out of Respondent's six stores were affected. Thus,
a great number of Respondent's employees could easily
have been directly and indirectly affected by the coercion
and threats. Where such extensive violations of the Act
accompany or follow closely the refusal to grant recogni-
tion, an inference of unlawfulness in such refusal is
justified.20 Certainly, it can be inferred here that the
threats of Respondent's store managers and nonfood su-
pervisor bespoke an intention on their part to destroy the
"Joy Silk Mills, Inc , 85 NLRB 1263
20 Cf Hammond & Irving, supra, Joy Silk Mills, Inc., supra
21 See, e g, N L R B v. Model Mill Company, Inc, 210 F.2d 829
(C.A 6), N L.R B. v Armco Drainage & Metal Products, Inc., Fabricat-
majority status of the Retail Clerks. The law is too well
settled to require citation that this intent is imputable to
the Respondent.
In sum then, where, as here, a union in fact represents
a majority of the employees, as shown by the Retail
Clerks majority showing of representation cards as of
April 28, and the employer thereafter engages in unfair
labor practices which tend to undermine the union's
majority and which prevent the holding of a fair election,
despite the fact that the employer willingly consented to
an election, the Board may appropriately remedy the un-
fair labor practices and restore the status quo by directing
the employer to bargain with the union.21 Moreover, it is
well settled, that where, as hereinafter found, the Union
has filed timely and meritorious objections to the election,
the Board may order bargaining in restoring the status
quo even though the Union participated in the election
and lost.22
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the Respondent
unlawfully has refused and is refusing to bargain with the
Retail Clerks in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
IV. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
As heretofore detailed, on May 24, 1966, the Retail
Clerks and the Meat Cutters filed objections to the elec-
tion. These objections were identical in content. The Re-
gional Director found that the objections were timely
filed and I concur in such finding. Thus, the Regional
Director, in disposing of the objections, disposed of all
but the following which were, in effect, included in the
8(a)(1) charges of this proceeding.
The objections which were referred to me in conjunc-
tion with the 8(a)(1) violations are as follows:
5. Subsequent to the filing of representation peti-
tion here and prior to the date of election, on diverse
occasions, supervisors
a. advised an employee in the variety store
that the store might be sold if the union got in or
that help would have to be cut way down;
b. granted an employee time off with the state-
ment that if the union got in things would be dif-
ferent;
d. informed an employee that, while he could
come and go as he pleased, he would not be able
to do so after the union got in;
e. informed an employee that he would lose
his job because the employer would have to cut
down on help.
It would unduly burden this Decision to repeat in detail
here the 8(a)(1) violations which are also included in the
foregoing objections. I will therefore summarize.
Objection 5a refers to the coercive threats made by Su-
pervisor Bathke to employee Wells that the Respondent
would sell the store or be forced to lay off some of the em-
ployees if the Union came in. Objection 5b refers to Store,
Manager Wilson's threat to employee Black that if the
Union came in, he would not be able to get time off the
ing Division , 220 F 2d 573, 577 (C A 6), cert denied 350 U S. 838
22 Irving Air Chute Company, Inc., Marathon Division , 149 NLRB
627, affd. 350 F 2d 176 (C. A. 2)
OLESON'S FOODS NO. 4, INC. 551
way he had been and that things would be different. Ob-
jection 5d refers to the threat by Store Manager Bob
Coon to employee Tappe that if the Union came in, the
employees would have to punch in and out for cof-
feebreaks. Objection 5e refers to the threat by Store
Manager Wilson to employee Sladek that if the Union
came in , he would have to lay off some of the part-time
help and that he would lose a good man, referring to
Sladek.
The Board has held that the conduct above recited is a
fortiori conduct which interferes with the exercise of the
free and untrammeled choice in an election.23
Accordingly, I shall recommend that the representation
election heretofore held in Cases 7-RC-7314 and
7-RC-7313 be set aside.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's
operations described in section 1, above, have a close, in-
timate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and con-
tinues to engage in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that the Board issue an order requiring that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, including the posting of appropriate notices,
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in acts
of interference, coercion, and restraint, and thereby hav-
ing violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend
that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom. Also,
having found that the Respondent has unlawfully refused
to bargain with the Retail Clerks and has therefore vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, I shall recommend that
the Respondent cease and desist from refusing to bargain
and shall further recommend that the Respondent bargain
upon the request of the Retail Clerks and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Retail Clerks and the Meat Cutters are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. All regular full-time and regular part-time em-
ployees of the Respondent at its stores located at 901
West Front Street, 1101 South Garfield, and 124 East
State Street, Traverse City; 112 Antrim Street and 116
Antrim Street, Charlevoix; and 211 South Mitchell
Street, Cadillac, Michigan, but excluding store managers,
assistant store managers, meat department employees,
confidential employees, office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. At all times since April 28; 1966, the Retail Clerks
has been the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, or other terms and conditions of employment.
6. By refusing on April 28, 1966, and thereafter, to
bargain collectively with the aforesaid labor organization,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices 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 the entire record in this case, it is
recommended that Oleson's Foods No. 4, Inc., Oleson's
Foods No. 5, Inc., Oleson's Foods No. 6, Inc., Gerald
W. Oleson and Frances M. Oleson, Co-Partners, d/b/a
Oleson's Food Stores, and Gerald W. Oleson and
Frances M. Oleson, Co-Partners, d/b/a Oleson's Variety
Store, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening their employees with economic
reprisals, more burdensome working conditions, and
changes in working conditions to induce the employees to
abandon their support of, and activities on behalf of,
Local 539, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, and Retail
Store Employees Union, Local No. 11, Retail Clerks In-
ternational Association, AFL-CIO.
(b) In any like or similar manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Local 539, Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, or Retail Store Employees Union, Local No.
11, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959.
(c) Refusing to bargain collectively with Retail Store
Employees Union, Local No. 11, Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of their employees in the following appropriate
unit:
"Irving Air Chute Company, Inc, Marathon Division , supra,
Playskool Manufacturing Company, 140 NLRB 1417, 1419.
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All regular full-time and regular part-time employees at
their stores located at 901 West Front Street, 1101 South
Garfield, and 124 East State Street, Traverse City; 112
Antrim Street and 116 Antrim Street, Charlevoix; and
211 South Mitchell Street, Cadillac, Michigan, but ex-
cluding store managers, assistant store managers, meat
department employees, confidential employees, office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Retail
Store Employees Union, Local No. 11, Retail Clerks In-
ternational Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of their employees in the unit found ap-
propriate with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other terms and conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such un-
derstanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its stores located at 901 West Front Street,
1101 South Garfield, and 124 East State Street, Traverse
City; 112 Antrim Street and 116 Antrim Street, Char-
levoix; and 211 South Mitchell Street, Cadillac,
Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."24 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by
the Respondent's representatives, shall be posted by the
Respondent 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 customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cases 7-RC-7314 and
7-RC-73 13 are hereby severed and the cases are hereby
referred back to the Regional Director for Region 7 with
the recommendation that the election heretofore held in
these cases be set aside and that the Regional Director
order a new election in Case 7-RC-7314 be held at such
time as he deems proper.
14 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision apd Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
25 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
conditions for the purpose of forcing them to aban-
don their support of Retail Store Employees Union,
Local No. 11, Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, or Local 539, Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Retail Store Employees Union, Local No. 11, Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive representative of our employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate unit:
All regular full-time and regular part-time em-
ployees of the Respondent at its stores located
at 901 West Front Street, 1101 South Garfield,
and 124 East State Street, Traverse City; 112
Antrim Street and 116 Antrim Street, Char-
levoix; and 211 South Mitchell Street, Cadillac,
Michigan, but excluding store managers,
assistant store managers, meat department em-
ployees, confidential employees, office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
Retail Store Employees Union, Local No. 11, Retail
Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's
employees in the unit found appropriate with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the ex-
ercise of their rights to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Local 539,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, AFL-CIO, and Retail Store Em-
ployees Union, Local No. 11, Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or-
ganization, to bargain collectively through represent-
atives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Report-
ing and Disclosure Act of 1959.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of Local
539, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, AFL-CIO, or Retail Store Employees
Union, Local No. 11, Retail Clerks International As-
sociation, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, ex-
cept to the extent that this right may be affected by an
agreement in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the
amended Act.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
OLESON'S FOODS NO. 4,
INC.
(Employer)
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with Dated By
economic reprisals or'more burdensome working (Representative) (Title)
OLESON'S FOODS NO. 4, INC. 553
OLESON'S FOODS NO. 5, OLESON's FOOD STORES
INC. (Employer)
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
OLESON'S VARIETY STORE
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
OLESON's FOODS No. 6, This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
INC. days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
(Employer) defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office , 500 Book
Dated By Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit , Michigan
(Representative ) (Title) 48226 , Telephone 226-3200.