Oliva Supermarkets LLC and RL Markets LLC, as alter egos and/or single employer

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 2016

363 NLRB No. 170 (N.L.R.B. 2016)

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Oliva Supermarkets LLC and RL Markets I LLC,
alter egos and United Food and Commercial
Workers, Local 464A. Case 22–CA–130315
April 28, 2016
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA
AND MCFERRAN
On December 18, 2015, Administrative Law Judge
Steven Fish issued the attached decision. The General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and brief1 and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions as
modified below2 and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified and set forth in full below.3
1 The judge’s decision, including his Conclusion of Law 4, con-
tained certain typographical errors, which have been corrected in the
attached Decision.
2 There are no exceptions to the judge’s conclusions that Respond-
ent RL Markets is the alter ego of Respondent Oliva, and that RL Mar-
kets and Oliva are single employers within the meaning of the Act.
There are also no exceptions to the judge’s conclusion that the Re-
spondents violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refus-
ing to recognize the Union as the collective-bargaining representative
of unit employees at its Whippany, New Jersey location, and by failing
to apply to unit employees the collective-bargaining agreement between
Respondent Oliva and the Union.
The Respondents have not excepted to the judge’s finding that Re-
spondents have not applied the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement, including wage rates and benefit contributions, to the unit
employees. We agree with the General Counsel that, on the facts of this
case, the judge should have concluded that the Respondents violated
Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by repudiating the collective-bargaining agreement,
as alleged in the unfair labor practice complaint. See, for example,
Newark Electric Corp., 362 NLRB No. 44, slip op. 1, 15 (2015) (af-
firming judge’s conclusion that respondents violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and
(1) by, among other things, “repudiating the collective-bargaining
agreement . . . and by failing to continue in effect all the terms and
conditions of employment of its collective-bargaining agreement, in-
cluding by ceasing to make contributions to the benefit funds”); Kodiak
Electric Co., Inc., 336 NLRB 1038, 1038, 1043 (2001) (affirming
judge’s conclusion of law that respondents violated Sec. 8(a)(5) “[b]y
refusing to apply the terms of its collective-bargaining agreements with
the Union to the unit employees . . .; repudiating its recognition of, and
contract with, the Union. . . .”), enfd. 70 Fed.Appx. 664 (4th Cir. 2003)
(unpublished). We have amended the judge’s Conclusions of Law
consistent with our findings here.
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order in accordance
with our decisions in AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143
(2016), and J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB 11 (2010), and to conform to
the amended conclusions of law, remedy, and the Board’s standard
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 4.
By failing and refusing to recognize the Union as the
collective-bargaining representative of its employees at
its Whippany, New Jersey location, employed in the bar-
gaining unit represented by the Union, and by repudiat-
ing, and failing to apply to the unit employees, the col-
lective-bargaining agreement between Respondent Oliva
and the Union, the Respondents have violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order them to
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
In addition to the remedies recommended by the judge,
we shall require the Respondents to give full force and
effect to the terms and conditions of employment provid-
ed in the collective-bargaining agreement effective from
March 18, 2012, through June 18, 2016, between the
Union and Oliva, and apply them to the unit employees
at the Whippany, New Jersey location. We shall require
Respondents to make whole unit employees by, inter
alia, making all delinquent contributions to the fringe
benefit funds set forth in the collective-bargaining
agreement that have not been made since May 7, 2014,
including any additional amounts due the funds in ac-
cordance with Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB
1213, 1216 fn. 7 (1979).4 The Respondents also shall be
required to reimburse the unit employees for any expens-
es ensuing from the failure to make the required benefit
fund contributions, as set forth in Kraft Plumbing &
Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661
F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981). Such amounts shall be com-
puted in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service,
183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir.
1971), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Hori-
zons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as pre-
scribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6
(2010).5 We shall also order the Respondents to com-
pensate affected employees for the adverse tax conse-
remedial language. We shall substitute a new notice to conform to the
Order as modified.
4 We leave to the compliance stage the question whether the Re-
spondents must pay any additional amounts into the benefit funds in
order to satisfy our make-whole remedy. Merryweather Optical Co.,
supra.
5 To the extent that an employee has made personal contributions to
a fund that are accepted by the fund in lieu of the employer’s delin-
quent contributions during the period of the delinquency, the Respond-
ents will reimburse the employee, but the amount of such reimburse-
ment will constitute a setoff to the amount that the Respondents other-
wise owe the fund.
363 NLRB No. 170

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
quences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards,
and file with the Regional Director a report allocating the
backpay awards to the appropriate calendar years for
each employee. AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363
NLRB No. 143 (2016).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondents, Oliva Supermarkets, LLC and RL Markets
1, LLC, Cedar Knolls and Whippany, New Jersey, their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 464A (the
Union) as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of employees in the following appropriate unit:

All employees employed at our Whippany, New Jersey
location, in the meat, poultry, fish, appetizer and delica-
tessen departments, both full time and part-time.

(b) Repudiating and failing and refusing to apply to
employees in the unit described above the collective-
bargaining agreement in effect from March 18, 2012,
through June 18, 2016, between the Union and Oliva
Supermarkets.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and, on request, bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit described above.
(b) Give full force and effect to the terms and condi-
tions of employment provided in the collective-
bargaining agreement effective from March 18, 2012,
through June 18, 2016, between the Union and Oliva
Supermarkets, and apply them to the employees in the
unit described above.
(c) Make whole unit employees for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits resulting from the Respondents’
repudiation of, and failure to apply, the collective-
bargaining agreement and pay all contractually required
fringe benefit fund contributions not previously paid, and
make unit employees whole for any expenses resulting
from the Respondents’ failure to make such contributions
in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
judge’s decision as amended in this decision.
(d) Compensate affected employees for the adverse
tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region
22, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allo-
cating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar
year(s) for each employee.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
their Whippany, New Jersey facility copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
22, after being signed by the Respondents’ authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondents and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous plac-
es, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondents
customarily communicate with their employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ents to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. If the Respondents have
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondents shall duplicate and
mail, at their own expense, a copy of the notice to all
current employees and former employees employed by
the Respondent at any time since May 7, 2014.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 22 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondents have
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 28, 2016

______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman

______________________________________
6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board.”

OLIVA SUPERMARKETS LLC 3
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member

______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain
with United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 464A
(the Union) as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of our employees in the following appropriate
bargaining unit:

All employees employed at our Whippany, New Jersey
location, in the meat, poultry, fish, appetizer and delica-
tessen departments, both full time and part-time.

WE WILL NOT repudiate and fail and refuse to apply to
employees in the unit described above the collective-
bargaining agreement in effect from March 18, 2012,
through June 18, 2016, between the Union and Oliva
Supermarkets.
WE WILL not in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of our employees in the unit described above.
WE WILL give full force and effect to the terms and
conditions of employment provided in the collective-
bargaining agreement effective from March 18, 2012,
through June 18, 2016, between the Union and Oliva
Supermarkets, and apply them to the employees in the
unit described above.
WE WILL make you whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of our repudiating, and
refusing to apply, the collective-bargaining agreement,
plus interest, and WE WILL pay all contractually required
fringe benefit fund contributions not previously paid and
reimburse you for any losses or expenses arising from
our failure to make the required payments, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate affected employees for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 22, within 21 days of the date the
amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay awards to
the appropriate calendar year(s) for each employee.

OLIVA SUPERMARKETS, LLC AND RL MARKETS
I, LLC

The Board’s decision can be found
at www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-130315 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.

OLIVA SUPERMARKETS, LLC AND RL MARKETS
I, LLC

Nancy Slahetka, Esq. and Robert Mulligan, Esq., for the Gen-
eral Counsel.
Victor Laracca, Pro Se for the Respondent Oliva Supermarkets.
Roberto Laracca, Pro Se for the Charging Party RL Markets.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STEVEN FISH, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to charg-
es filed on June 5, 2014, by United Food and Commercial
Workers, Local 464A (Union or Local 464A), the Director for
Region 22 of the National Labor Relations Board issued a
complaint and notice of hearing on December 30, 2014, alleg-
ing that Respondent Oliva Supermarkets herein called (Oliva)
and Respondent RL Market’s, LLC herein called (RL) (Jointly
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4
Respondents) were alter egos and had violated Sections 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by failing to recognize and bargain with the
Union, and by repudiating the collective bargaining with the
Union and refusing to apply the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement to employees at Respondents’ Whippany,
New Jersey location. A trial was heard before me in Newark,
New Jersey, on March 17, 18, 19, and 20, 2015. Briefs have
been filed by General Counsel and Respondents, and have been
carefully considered. Based on the entire record, including my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent Oliva is a limited liability company (LLC) with
an office and place of business in Cedar Knolls, New Jersey,
where it operated a retail grocery store, until February of 2014.
Since May 2014, Respondent RL Markets, an LLC with an
office and place of business in Whippany, New Jersey, has
been operating a retail grocery store.
Based on a projection of its operations since May 4, 2014, at
which time Respondent RL Markets commenced its operations
at its Whippany, New Jersey facility, Respondent RL Markets
will derive gross revenues in excess of $500,000 in conducting
its operations.
During the same period of time, Respondent RL Markets has
purchased and received at its Whippany, New Jersey facility,
products, goods, and materials in excess of $5000 from other
enterprises located within the state of New Jersey, each of
which other enterprises has received these goods from points
outside the state of New Jersey.
It is admitted and I so find that Respondents have been an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
It is also admitted and I so find that the Union has been a la-
bor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. FACTS
A. Background
Oliva operated a downtown supermarket in Cedar Knolls,
New Jersey, from 2004 until the store closed on February 22,
2014. On May 7, 2014, RL Markets opened a supermarket
named Farmtastic in Whippany, New Jersey (Whippany Stores
or Farmtastic), which is located three miles away from the Ce-
dar Knolls store, both located in Hanover Township, New Jer-
sey. V&V Supermarkets (V&V or Lake Hiawatha) operates
another Foodtown supermarket in Lake Hiawatha (Lake Hiawa-
tha store), which has been opened since 2001.
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 464A repre-
sents a unit of employees employed in the meat, poultry, fish,
appetizers, and deli departments of Foodtown supermarkets
within a certain jurisdictional area of New Jersey and New
York. Other employees at the Cedar Knolls and Lake Hiawatha
stores are represented for the purpose of collective bargaining
by Local 1262, United Food and Commercial Workers (Local
1262). The most recent contract is effective from March 18,
2012, through June 18, 2016. Oliva and V&V are parties to
this contract. RL Markets has not recognized the Union and
has not applied the contract to the bargaining unit members
working at the Whippany store, even though the Whippany
store is located within the Union’s jurisdiction.
B. Corporate Structure and Management of Companies
Victor Laracca owns a 99 percent interest in Oliva and his
wife Josephine owns a 1 percent interest. Victor Laracca is
also the owner and president of V&V (V&V is a corporation).
See Rider page 14. Roberto Laracca, Victor Laracca’s son,
is listed on the Certificate of Formation of RL Markets as the
sole owner. Roberto Laracca was the store manager at the
V&V Lake Hiawatha store.
Victor Laracca has been the owner of a number of supermar-
kets since 1977. He purchased his first supermarket located in
Orange, New Jersey, and it was a Foodtown store. At that time,
Victor agreed to recognize the Union, which had represented
the employees in the Local 464A bargaining unit, and to apply
the collective-bargaining agreement in existence at the time.
Victor sold that store and, in partnership with his brother, pur-
chased another Foodtown supermarket located in Newark, New
Jersey, in 1982. Once again Victor Laracca agreed to recognize
the Union and apply the Union contract to the employees in the
bargaining unit at that store.
In 2001, Victor Laracca purchased the Lake Hiawatha store,
which was a Grand Union store that had gone bankrupt. Grand
Union had the same contract with Local 464A as the Foodtown
markets. Victor opened the store as a Foodtown and agreed to
recognize the Union and apply the contract to the bargaining
unit employees at that store, under V&V.
In 2004, Victor Laracca bought the Cedar Knolls store,
which was also purchased through the bankruptcy court. At
that time he also agreed to recognize the Union as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative for the employees in the bargain-
ing unit, and to apply the contract to them.
Adam Shapiro was the store manager at the Cedar Knolls
Foodtown. Shapiro had been employed at the store, which had
been a Foodtown prior to the bankruptcy. Shapiro had been a
member of Local 1262 when he was employed by the prior
Foodtown market. After Shapiro’s employment started at Oliva
as manager, he was not a Local 1262 member for a number of
years. However, Shapiro at some point went to Victor Laracca,
and asked if he could go back into the union (Local 1262) so he
could accrue pension credits. Laracca said okay and Shapiro
rejoined Local 1262. Thus, from that time on Shapiro also
received health benefits through Local 1262’s plan, although he
was the manager at the Cedar Knolls store. After the Cedar
Knolls store closed in February of 2014, as will be described in
more detail below, Shapiro eventually was hired as manager of
the Whippany Farmtastic store, owned by RL Markets, which
opened in May of 2014. At the Farmtastic store, Shapiro re-
ceived health insurance under the Company plan, which covers
management of V&V and the family members of the Laracca
family. This includes Victor Laracca, Roberto Laracca, and
Daniella Laracca, who is Victor’s daughter and Roberto’s sis-
ter. Daniella Laracca was employed by Oliva as a bookkeeper
and worked under the supervision of Patty Hicks, who was the
bookkeeper for both V&V and Oliva, as well as RL Markets.
When RL Markets opened the Farmtastic store in Whippany on
OLIVA SUPERMARKETS LLC 5
May 7, 2014, Daniella Laracca was hired to run the Juice Bar at
the Whippany store; she continued to assist Hicks as a
bookkeeper as well at the Whippany store.
The store at Whippany had originally been a Pathmark su-
permarket, which had closed and was vacant for some time
when Roberto Laracca had the idea to open a store at the loca-
tion sometime in 2011. He discussed it with his father, Victor,
who initially was skeptical, but eventually agreed that Roberto
should pursue it and agreed to help Roberto with financial and
operational matters concerning the store. On December 15,
2011, RL Markets I LLC was formed. The company’s manager
listed on the certificate of formation was Roberto Laracca.
Roberto Laracca was the only member of the LLC listed, and
he signed the operating agreement.
On December 15, 2011, RL Markets executed a 15-year
lease with Pine Plaza Associates for the Whippany store. Vic-
tor participated in the negotiations with the landlord. The lease
is guaranteed by the assets of V&V and Oliva, and personally
guaranteed by Victor and Josephine Laracca. Under the terms
of the lease, monthly payments were $35,000, plus CAM
charges and taxes. A CAM charge covers maintenance of the
shopping mall, and is based on the size of the tenant. Since RL
Markets was the biggest store in the shopping center, it paid the
most CAM charges. According to Roberto Laracca, RL Mar-
kets’ total monthly payments under the lease, including CAM
charges, came to $60,000 per month.
The lease also included a clause stating that the “tenant shall
operate the business under the trade name Foodtown.” It fur-
ther provides that the tenant has 15 days from execution of the
lease to obtain approval from the Board of Foodtown to operate
a Foodtown supermarket at the premises, and in the event that
the tenant fails to obtain such approval and provide landlord
evidence of same, either party may terminate the lease without
penalty.
As part of the negotiations for the lease with Pine Plaza, RL
Markets agreed to purchase shelving and cases for all depart-
ments such as seafood, deli, produce, dairy, and frozen foods,
which had been left in the store by Pathmark. RL Markets
agreed to pay between $35,000–$50,000 for this equipment.
Funding for the operations of RL Markets came primarily
from assets of Victor and Josephine Laracca and the V&V and
Oliva businesses. Additionally, RL Markets received $100,000
from Michael Levine, a personal friend of Roberto Laracca, in
April of 2013. This was according to Roberto Laracca a loan,
which was supposed to be paid back. There is no written doc-
umentation of the loan, which has not been paid back.
In January of 2013, Victor and Roberto Laracca met with
Michael Donofrio, managing director of member business ser-
vices and lending for Affinity Federal Credit Union (Affinity).
They met at the Whippany location, and discussed financing for
the store operations. Donofrio looked around the store and
asked what the equipment was worth. Victor explained that it
was an existing market, and a lot of the equipment can stay
there, and there was value in the store. Donofrio asked the
Laraccas “how much money do you need?” Victor asked for
$600,000, agreed that he would cosign personally for the loan
along with RL Markets, and that his other companies, V&V
and Oliva, would be guarantors. There was also discussion of
combining the amount with refinancing of Oliva’s existing loan
with Mariners Bank.
Ultimately the negotiations resulted in a tentative agreement
for a loan of $600,000. This was memorialized in a document
dated June 1, 2012, signed by Donofrio, entitled conditional
loan sheet. It reflects that the agreement was for a $600,000
revolving line of credit, and the purpose of the loan was “to
organize assets and initial inventory for a new supermarket to
be opened in Whippany, New Jersey. This line shall be termed
out under a combined refinancing of existing debt held by Mar-
iners Bank and this line of credit.”
The letter was addressed to Victor Laracca, managing mem-
ber, RL Markets. The letter states that the coborrowers of the
business were RL Markets and Victor Laracca, individually and
guarantors were Oliva and V&V.
Thereafter, according to Victor Laracca, he made numerous
calls to the bank trying to find out what was happening with the
loan, but got no response from the bank. At one point, Laracca
was told that Donofrio had been fired, and at another point,
Laracca dealt with Ms. Nunez from the bank who came to the
store again, looked at it, and informed Laracca that the bank
was still willing to do the loan, as per Donofrio’s June 1, 2012
contract loan sheet.
However, Laracca asserts that the bank never got back to
him, and he subsequently was informed that Ms. Nunez had left
the bank as well.
At that point, according to Laracca, he decided to go else-
where to obtain the funds and as he testified, “we went to Mari-
ners Bank.” In that regard, they had an outstanding loan of
$850,000 to V&V, Oliva and Victor and Josephine Laracca
individually secured by the three properties in New Jersey
owned by the Laraccas in existence at that time. Victor went to
Mariners Bank and restructured that loan and obtained a loan of
$400,000 to RL Markets. This loan was guaranteed individual-
ly by Victor and Josephine Laracca, and secured by the assets
of V&V and Oliva, and by mortgages on these properties
owned by Victor and Josephine.
The loan agreement with Mariners Bank and RL Markets
was executed on December 17, 2012, and the $400,000 was
given to RL Markets and was used by RL Markets primarily to
pay bills to the contractors for construction of the store, which
had started in early 2012, and continued until shortly before
opening in May of 2014.
The prior payments to Coldstat for construction work at the
Whippany store on behalf of RL Markets were made directly
by Oliva to Coldstat. Similarly, Oliva paid bills directly on RL
Markets’ behalf to other vendors and contractors, including
Evans Architects for design work on the store, payments to
A&J Refrigeration for work at the store, payments to Marca
Lopez for floor cleaning and to JBR Telecom for telephone
service at the store.
Additionally, Oliva made payments on RL’s behalf to Pine
Plaza (the landlord) for RL Markets’ Lease, and directly made
the monthly payments on RL Markets’ loan to Mariners Bank
from its inception in December of 2012, until May of 2014
when the Whippany store opened.
The Pine Plaza lease had a 4-month grace period, so no lease
payments were due for the first 4 months. RL Markets then
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6
commenced paying the landlord for lease payments for 3
months. However, according to Roberto, RL Markets could not
afford to continue these payments after that because the Whip-
pany store was still not yet open, and generating no money and
he could not “tap into his father’s company anymore.” On
February 26, 2015, after an eviction proceeding brought by the
landlord, RL Markets entered into a settlement with Pine Plaza,
providing for the payment of $1,483 million of back rent, in
accordance with schedule of payments per month, including a
payment of $39,700 by January 23, 2015. The settlement was
signed by Marco Laracca Esq., as tenant’s attorney, and signed
by Victor Laracca, as tenant (RL Markets).
In April of 2014, shortly before the Whippany store was
about to open, it was necessary to obtain funding for the pur-
chase of groceries from C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (C&S) to
stock the store. On April 24, 2014, a promissory note was
signed for a loan of $350,000 to RL Markets and V&V, which
was personally guaranteed by Victor and Josephine Laracca
and signed by a mortgage on a condominium in Hoboken, New
Jersey, jointly owned by Josephine and Daniella Laracca. Vic-
tor Laracca also gave Roberto between $50,000 and $75,000
before the opening of the store to purchase equipment.
As noted above, Patricia Hicks was the bookkeeper for all
these entities, V&V, Oliva, and RL Markets. Hicks initially
worked at an office at the Cedar Knolls, Oliva store, until that
store closed. During this period of time she performed
bookkeeping functions for both V&V and Oliva, although she
was paid only by Oliva. Once Oliva closed in December of
2014, as will be described more fully below, Hicks then began
receiving pay from V&V.
Hicks began performing bookkeeping functions for RL Mar-
kets once RL Markets began operating, years before the store
actually opened. Thus, Hicks completed the financial docu-
ments necessary for RL Markets to operate, such as opening
bank accounts, setting up credit card accounts, and applying for
various licenses. Hicks did not receive any salary from RL
Markets at any time. Hicks also was signing witness on RL
Markets’ patronage agreement with Allegiance and RL Mar-
kets’ loan with V&V.
After Oliva closed the store in February of 2014, Hicks
moved to the Whippany store of RL Markets and worked in
part of that office, as bookkeeper for all three Laracca entities.
Victor Laracca, who also had an office at Oliva’s Cedar Knolls
location, also now has an office at Whippany. Neither Victor,
Oliva, or V&V pay any rent to RL Markets for use of the
Whippany office, even though Victor and Hicks conduct busi-
ness for V&V and Oliva from that office.
While Hicks was performing bookkeeper functions for all
three entities, she would allocate monies of the bank accounts
at her direction often without authorization or approval from
either Victor or Roberto. At times, neither Roberto nor Victor
knew from which account Hicks made payments to pay bills.
Hick’s duties for all three companies were to process paya-
bles, pay vendors for foods and services, keep files and records,
and allocate money between the various banks accounts of all
three companies. In this regard, Hicks trained and supervised
Daniella Laracca as a part-time bookkeeper at the Cedar Knolls
and the Whippany stores.
Bank accounts for V&V, Oliva, and RL Markets were
opened at the TD Banks and Santander Bank, where Hicks and
Victor were authorized signers for the Oliva and V&V ac-
counts, and Roberto and Hicks were authorized signers of the
RL Market Accounts.
Accounts were opened with Affinity Credit Union for Oliva,
V&V, and RL Markets in an attempt to secure a loan through
Affinity. After RL Markets failed to obtain approval for financ-
ing through Affinity, Oliva and V&V accounts at Affinity were
closed. Additionally, both RL Markets and Oliva used the
same accountant and insurance agent. When the Whippany
store opened, it used the same payroll service as the Cedar
Knolls and Lake Hiawatha store. At some point after the Cedar
Knolls store closed, the payroll provider for the Whippany and
Lake Hiawatha stores was changed.
Victor Laracca managed the planning and construction work
over a more than 2-year period at the Whippany store. Victor
Laracca was the main contact person with the contractors used
by RL Markets, as well as with the township of Hanover. For
example, in construction permits filed with the Hanover Town-
ship, for work at the Whippany Supermarket by Breeson Pro-
tection Company for the installation and electrical work on
existing fire alarms and installation of a new burglar alarm,
Victor Laracca is listed as the owner.
Victor Laracca and Roberto Laracca met with representatives
of Evans Architects and Lind International Design in early
2012, to formulate a design plan for the Whippany store. The
proposed alteration plan filed with Hanover Township by Ev-
ans Architects lists the proposed alteration for a Super
Foodtown at 831 Route 10 East, Whippany, New Jersey as the
address. Emails in February of 2012 amongst Victor Laracca,
Lind Design, and Ion Sarkasian, from Coldstat Refrigeration,
the General Contractor, evidences that the store at that point
was being referred to as Super Foodtown.
For example, on February 21, 2012, Patti Hicks sent an email
to Ion Sarkasian of Coldstat, on behalf of Victor. The subject is
Whippany and it is titled proposed plan. The message reads
“Ion, Attached is the latest plans for the Whippany store. I like
them. What do you think? Victor”
Additionally, on February 28 at 2:03 pm, Sam Barmans from
Lind Design sent an email to Victor Laracca, subject Super
Foodtown, Whippany, New Jersey, wherein he states: “Hi Vic-
tor, Attached is a copy of the revised plan that has been updated
as per our meeting last Friday.”
The next morning, February 29, 2012, Barman sent an email
to Sarkasian, at 9:31 a.m., with a Subject of “Super Foodtown,
Whippany, New Jersey,” which reads, “Hi Ion, attached is a
copy of the fixture plan that was sent to Victor yesterday.”
At 11:01 on February 29, 2012, Hicks sent a similar email to
Sarkasian, attaching the revised plan for the store, which also
refers to the store as Foodtown, Whippany New Jersey, and the
email reads “Ion, attached is revised fixture plan.”
On March of 2012, Roberto and Victor met again with the
architect, and informed him that the new store would be called
“Farmtastic.” Thereafter, the architect prepared a design plan,
with the logo “Farmtastic Market” on the store. Interestingly,
on this plan, the document states “client, super Foodtown
Whippany, N.J., and Foodtown Whippany, N.J. elevations.”
OLIVA SUPERMARKETS LLC 7
On March 28, 2012, Sarkasian emailed Hicks at 8 a.m. and
asked, “Could you get Victor to give you the name he wants to
use on the new paperwork for the new store.”
Hicks responded at 12:01 p.m. to Sarkasian. She stated,
“Ion, the company name is RL Markets I, LLC. Responsible
party is Roberto Laracca store track name is Farmtastic Mar-
kets. Mailing address is 4 Lafayette Court, Whippany, N.J.
07981.”
The construction and renovations at the store, by Coldstat,
began in 2012, and continued through the end of 2013. RL
Markets revised the construction plans to include loans for
additional building and electrical work on a Pharmacy in Octo-
ber of 2013.
On January 22, 2014, Julia Lee Piscitelli of the Hanover
Township Health Department sent the following email to Sean
Donlon, a Hanover Township official, with the subject,
Farmtastic Market. It reads; “Sean, a pre-operational inspec-
tion was conducted at Farmtastic on 1/21/14. Health Depart-
ment has approved opening. I specifically advised Victor
LaRocca that all other departmental approvals were required
before he opened.”
On January 23, 2014, Hanover Sewer Authority (HAS), de-
termined that I would not approve the occupancy of the
Farmtastic Store until problems were resolved, relating to
grease traps and separation of wastewater streams.
Over the next several months emails and plans were sent be-
tween Mike Wynne, an official of HAS, Kevin Antonelli, a
representative of Pine Plaza, the landlord, Hicks, Sarkasian, and
Evans Architect’s, recording the plans for Farmtastic to meet
HSA’s requirements and obtain approval for occupancy. For
example on February 27, 2014, Antonelli sent an email to
Wynne, with copies to Hicks and Sarkasian, with subject, “Pine
Plaza, Farmtastic sink approval letter.” It reads, “Mr. Wynne,
per your conversation with Victor, I am attaching our letter of
approval for the sink in the coffee shop.”
Meanwhile Victor and Roberto met with the ex-mayor and
the Building Department in an attempt to get temporary per-
mits.
On December 30, 2014, Roberto wrote to the Building De-
partment requesting permission to allow stocking of the Whip-
pany Store, while the necessary repairs were being made to
correct the deficiencies uncovered in the inspections. He noted
the store will not be open to the public until the corrections
were completed.
This request was granted, and after Farmtastic received its
temporary permits on March 3, 2014, it began to stock the store
with merchandise.
On May 2, 2014, HSA wrote to RL Markets, stating that the
grease trap and maintenance requirements had not yet been
reviewed by HSA’s Manager, and that needed to be done, plus
payment of supplemental inspection fees, before occupancy
could be authorized.
On May 5, 2014, Wynne sent an email to Antonelli, report-
ing that Farmtastic paid their inspection bill and an appointment
was being set up the following day to review the grease trap
OBM requirements.
On Tuesday May 6, 2014, Antonelli emailed Wynne as fol-
lows, “re-Farmtastic.” “According to UPS they delivered the
check this morning. Can you please advise if this clears our
part up on Victor opening tomorrow and is he in the clear on
his matters with you also?”
Farmtastic opened for business on May 7, 2014.
Sharon Shepherd has been employed at the Lake Hiawatha
store for 12 years. She was the deli manager, and was and is a
member of the Union. Sheppard testified that about 3 years
before the Whippany store opened, she heard that the Laraccas
were opening a store in Whippany, New Jersey. Sheppard
assumed that the store was going to be another Foodtown, since
the Laraccas already had two Foodtowns (V&V and Oliva).
Shortly thereafter, Sheppard spoke to Roberto Laracca, who
was at the time the store manager at the Lake Hiawatha store.
Sheppard said to Roberto that she had heard that they were
opening a new store in Whippany. Roberto answered, “yes we
are.” Roberto did not say, nor did Sheppard ask, whether the
store would be a Foodtown, but Sheppard assumed that it was
going to be a Foodtown, since both the Cedar Knolls and Lake
Hiawatha stores owned by the Laraccas were Foodtown.
About a year later, Sheppard had another conversation with
Roberto, and she asked him if the new store in Whippany was
going to be a Foodtown and if it was going to be nonunion?
Roberto replied that the store was not going to be a Foodtown,
and it would not be a union store.
Shortly after that conversation, Sheppard found out that the
name of the new supermarket was going to be Farmtastic from
one of the butchers working at Lake Hiawatha, who informed
her that his son had made the sign for the Farmtastic store.
This conversation, according to Sheppard, was about a year
before the Whippany store opened.
Over the next year, Sheppard had several conversations with
Roberto about the Whippany store. She would ask him how
things were going with the new store, and how much sooner
until it would open. Roberto responded that “we ran into prob-
lems, and it’s going to be open soon.” During these conversa-
tions, Sheppard would ask Roberto if he was going to be leav-
ing the Hiawatha store and go over to the Whippany store, be-
cause she liked Roberto, and liked him as manager at Lake
Hiawatha. Roberto initially answered that he did not know if
he was going to go over to Whippany and that they were think-
ing about it.
About 6 months before the Whippany store opened, Shep-
pard asked Roberto again, if he was going over there. Roberto
replied yes, “it’s my store, I’m going over there.” Roberto did
not say specifically if he was going over there as owner or
manager.
Victor Laracca lived in Whippany, New Jersey, for many
years, coached soccer for many years, and was known by a lot
of people in Whippany. Victor testified that 40 percent of the
people in Whippany knew him. In fact, Victor further testified
that one of the reasons why the Cedar Knolls store was taken
over by him was because he received over 60 phone calls from
people in Whippany, telling him that the store in Cedar Knolls
was bankrupt, and asking him to please open up that store.
Victor stated that he believed that the Cedar Knolls store could
do well, so he decided to take a shot “doing” the store.
In early 2013, Mike Piscitelli, business agent for Local
464A, during visits to the Cedar Knolls store, was informed by
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8
Cedar Knolls employees that customers and vendors were tell-
ing these employees that their store was closing and that they
were going to be going over to the Whippany location.
Prior to Thanksgiving in 2013, customers at the Cedar
Knolls Store told employees there, including Carol DiMarsico,
who was employed at the Cedar Knolls Store as a deli clerk,
that the store was closing and the employees would be moving
to Whippany. DiMarsico told the customer that they were not
moving, and were staying where they were. Subsequently,
DiMarsico spoke to the same customer again, who again in-
formed her that “You’re going to Whippany.” DiMarsico re-
plied, “Why are we going to Whippany, we have no inkling of
going to Whippany.” The customer informed DiMarsico that at
a senior citizen meeting in Hanover township, it was announced
that the Cedar Knolls Foodtown was moving to Whippany on
Route 10.
As I have detailed above, the name for the Whippany Store
was not chosen until late March of 2012. Initially, the store
was going to be a Foodtown, as evidenced by the initial archi-
tect plans and documents for the store. However, in March it
was decided that the store would not be a Foodtown, and that it
would be called Farmtastic.
The collective-bargaining agreement that was in effect be-
tween the Union and Oliva when the Cedar Knolls Store closed
was negotiated in March of 2012. The negotiations were con-
ducted by representatives of Allegiance Retail Services, which
is a co-op, consisting of members of Employers, primarily
Foodtown Stores, but also including other supermarkets, and
brands.
David Maniaci, Chairman and CEO of Allegiance, testified
about Allegiance, as well as detailing the bargaining history
with the last two unions, and the last contract negotiations, that
led to the collective-bargaining agreement in existence between
Oliva and Local 464. Allegiance is a retail co-operative that
offers services to independent operators of supermarkets in
New York and New Jersey. It has about 23 members, with
about 90 supermarket locations owned by the members.1 Alle-
giance provides marketing, advertising, technological and oper-
ational support, as well as a full line of Foodtown private label
products to its members. Allegiance prepares weekly circulars
for all of its members, and members honor the same club card
for the purpose of customer discounts.
Allegiance stores have the option of using the Foodtown
banner and/or selling Foodtown private label products but they
are not required to do either. About 80 percent of the stores in
Allegiance are Foodtown Stores, and the rest are other super-
markets. The non-Foodtown Stores use the same circulars
prepared by Allegiance, which include Foodtown products, and
a store must belong to the Allegiance Co-op in order to sell
Foodtown products or to operate under the Foodtown banner.
The non-Foodtown Supermarkets that are members of the
co-op sell Foodtown products, but are not Foodtown Stores and
1 A member of the Co-op can operate more than one supermarket
location. For example Maniaci himself operates three Foodtown Su-
permarkets located in New Jersey. Victor Laracca, as noted above
owned and operated the Foodtown Markets in Cedar Knolls and Lake
Hawartha, New Jersey, and was a member of the Co-op.
do not use the Foodtown banner. These Supermarkets are
mostly independent operations with names such as Freshtown,
Uncle Giuseppe’s, Labella Marketplace, Orchard Fine Foods,
Big Deal Food Market, as well as D’Agostino’s stores in New
York City.
According to Maniaci, previously the Co-op was not called
Allegiance, and was composed of only members of Foodtown
Stores. Subsequently a number of Foodtown stores went out of
business or were brought out by Stop & Shop. Thus, Alle-
giance was formed, and other non-Foodtown Supermarkets
were permitted to join the Co-op.
Collective bargaining for the stores was conducted by the
Co-op’s representatives with both Local 1262 and Local 464.
In prior years, negotiations with the Unions were conducted
along with representatives from other large supermarket chains,
such as Shop Rite, Pathmark, and Grand Union. The contracts
were essentially the same for all supermarkets, with some mi-
nor deviation.
Maniaci testified, as noted above, that the number of
Foodtowns had substantially decreased, and by the last round of
negotiations the number of Foodtown stores in New Jersey had
been reduced to 12. All of the Foodtown stores were bound by
the previous contract. According to Maniaci, if an owner
opened up a new store under the Foodtown banner, it would be
bound to apply the contract to employees at the newly opened
store.
According to Maniaci, the individual members gave notice to
both Local 1262 and Local 464 that they no longer wanted to
negotiate together as Foodtown, but that they wished to negoti-
ate separately with the Unions. Local 1262 accepted the notice
and, according to Maniaci, negotiated separate contracts with
each of the stores under their own Company name, and not
under Foodtown.
However, Local 464 did not accept the notice and, according
to Maniaci, the attorney that represented the Co-op missed the
deadline for filing by a day or so. Therefore, the attorney ad-
vised Maniaci that for the last contract they had to negotiate
collectively for a contract covering all the Foodtown stores.
The negotiations resulted in a memorandum of agreement for
a new contract, and was executed on April 12, 2012. The MOA
reflects that the terms of the prior agreement would be contin-
ued, with the exception of certain changes set forth in the MOA
in various areas, such as wages, vacations, pension welfare
benefit payments, and contract language.
The effective dates of the new agreements were March 18,
2012, and expiring on June 18, 2016.
While the MOA was signed by a representative of Foodtown
Supermarkets, it also stated that it covers all individual em-
ployers trading as Foodtown for two companies, NEI and
V&V.
Initially, Victor Laracca did not wish to be bound by the
MOA, and the new contract, for his two companies, V&V and
Oliva, and he complained to Maniaci that the contract was too
rich and that he did not want to go along with it, because he
thought that Maniaci should get a better deal. Victor Laracca
testified that “we could not afford it, we still can’t.”
During the course of negotiations for this contract and the
MOA, Victor Laracca had discussions with Mike Piscatelli,

OLIVA SUPERMARKETS LLC 9
business agent for Local 464 in Laracca’s office at the Cedar
Knolls Store. Laracca complained to Piscatelli that the agree-
ment negotiated with Foodtown, was essentially the same con-
tract that the Union had with Shop Rite, and Victor felt that
Foodtown should not have the same type of contract as Shop
Rite; particularly with regard to benefits and raises.
After Victor told Maniaci that his companies (V&V and Oli-
va) did want to go along with the new contract as agreed upon
in the MOA, the MOA was signed excluding Victor’s compa-
nies from the agreement. After discussing the matter with his
attorney, Victor reconsidered and decided to go along with the
contract negotiated as set forth in the MOA, signed on April 12,
2012. Thus, on April 13, 2012, Victor Laracca sent out a letter
dated April 13, 2012. It reads: “Re. V&V Supermarkets aka
Foodtown Hiawatha, Foodtown Cedar Knolls.”
“Please accept this letter as confirmation that the above
named companies accept the collective bargaining agreement
between Local 464A and Foodtown effective March 18, 2012
through June 18, 2016.” The letter was signed “Victor Laracca,
President.” As noted above, Oliva abided by the terms of the
contract until it closed the Cedar Knolls Store in late February
of 2014.
Maniaci testified that he was informed by someone at the Al-
legiance Co-op that Victor’s Cedar Knoll’s Store was going to
close and that Roberto was going to open up a store in Whippa-
ny at the old Pathmark. He was also told that the Whippany
Store was not going to be a Foodtown. He and the other Co-op
member who informed Maniaci about this decision discussed
that they were more surprised that the new store was not going
to be a Foodtown, but no reason was given for the decision,
other than Roberto wanted to open the store up as a Farmtastic
Supermarket. Maniaci was disappointed that the new store
would not be a Foodtown, but he did not discuss it with Victor
or Roberto.
Both Victor and Roberto admitted that they were aware, as
Maniaci testified, that if the Whippany Store was opened as a
Foodtown, the new store would be obligated to recognize the
Union and apply the terms of the contract to the employees
employed in the categories covered by the Local 464 contract.
Roberto testified also that he could not afford the Local 464
contract, but also insisted that the decision to use the Farmtastic
name for the new store was not based on a desire to avoid the
union contract, but rather because he did not want to be a
Foodtown and wanted a new, fresh name, with emphasis on
organic products for his new store.
As I have detailed above, from the time that RL Markets was
formed, until it opened the Farmtastic supermarket in May of
2014, the market was not opened for business, and RL Market
had no income. However, funding for RL Market for construc-
tion costs, lease payments, fees to architects, and purchases of
supplies had to come from somewhere, and it came from Oliva,
V&V, and the personal guarantees from Victor, Josephine, and
Daniella Laracca and their properties. Although Roberto La-
racca testified that the funds provided to RL Markets by V&V,
Oliva and the Laracca family were loans, there is no documen-
tation memorializing an agreement for repayment of any of
these monies, and there is no established time for repayment.
Further, there is no agreement that RL Markets is required to
pay any interest to Oliva, V&V, or the other Laracca family
members for these alleged loans. Oliva’s 2013 tax return did
list as an asset a $548,448 loan to RL Markets.
Victor Laracca testified concerning the financing for RL
Markets, and the loans that were taken out by RL Markets,
guaranteed by V&V, Oliva, and the Laraccas personally, as
well as their properties. He testified about the loan from
Marimer’s bank: “So anyway, we took the loan and we pursued
the construction for RL Markets Farmtastic Supermarket.”
Testifying about his problems obtaining approvals from the
Hanover Building Department to open Farmtastic, Victor stat-
ed, “we had this problem with sewage and so . . . I said, look,
Roberto, my son we have no more money.” Victor then stated
that “[w]e spoke to the building Department and said look, can
you give a, what do you call it, a permit for this right away?”
He continued, “. . . now we have the temporary Co. . . and
C&S does not want to delivery [sic] groceries.” After Victor
went “back and forth and back and forth for a few weeks” try-
ing to get a loan from C&S for the initial inventory at
Farmtastic, Victor’s wife and daughter put up their condomini-
um as collateral to procure the loan. Victor admitted that Rob-
erto did not have the ability to secure financing without help.
In his testimony, Victor summarized the “help” that Roberto
received from his family:

So at this point, if RL Markets gets in big, big trouble, which
it’s already in, I will lose everything that I have. I’ll tell you
what I have as collateral. I know it’s in the files, but I want to
explain.

We have—I have a house, my wife has a house in Parsippany
that we’ve had. That’s been put in as collateral, she put it in
as collateral. There’s a piece of property in Parsippany also
and that was put in collateral. We have the shore house.
That’s been put in collateral. And the two businesses that we
had at the time, those were put in collateral.

My daughter has also put in her house or a town house in col-
lateral. So those properties will probably all be gone if he—if
they foreclose on him, everything will be gone. There’s no
equity right now because everything is being mortgaged, ba-
sically, there’s nothing.

And to be quite honest with you, I’m – right now I’m thinking
the only solution I have is to try and sell V&V store, get some
funds to pay off whoever I’ve got to pay off to get them off
my back and see what I can do because I can’t—if everybody
starts foreclosing on me, we’ll be out of business very quick-
ly.
C. The Closing of Oliva
Victor Laracca testified that he had no intentions of closing
the Cedar Knolls Store, and it was always his intention to con-
tinue operating that store, even after the RL Markets Whippany
store opened. According to Victor, the closing of the Cedar
Knolls store was solely due to his failed attempts to renew the
lease for the store. In that regard, the lease for the store was
between Stop & Shop and the landlord. After Stop & Shop left
the store, a Foodtown operator, Mickus Brother’s, took over the
store, and then took over the lease. When that Foodtown opera-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10
tor went into bankruptcy, and closed the store, Oliva purchased
the assets of the store, and became a sub-lease on the lease,
between Stop & Shop and the landlord. The lease was set to
expire in January of 2014.
In June of 2013, Victor contacted Victor Spina, a representa-
tive of the landlord who managed the property to discuss nego-
tiations for a new lease. This was to be a lease directly between
Oliva and the landlord for the property.
On September 17, 2013, Oliva emailed Spina a proposal for
a lease of the property at Cedar Knolls. The proposal was for a
5-year lease with payments ranging from $31,000 to
$34,564.73 per month, plus a ranging percentage of the store’s
annual sales. Victor testified that he spoke to Spina several
more times over the next few months, and Spina finally in-
formed him that his offer was not enough, but did not come
back with a counter offer.
In a subsequent conversation with Spina, Victor was appar-
ently told that the landlord was not interested in a long-term
lease agreement, but might be open to an extension past the
January 2014 expiration. Victor sent an email to Spina, dated
October 25, 2013, summarizing both parties’ positions. It
reads, “As per our previous conversation regarding the lease for
Foodtown at the Cedar Knolls Plaza, you have indicated that
your firm is not interested in a long term lease agreement, but
that you might be open to an extension past the January 2014
expiration. I am interested in an extension for as long a period
as your firm is willing to extend. I previously gave a lease
proposal of $31,000 per month. If this is not an acceptable rate,
please provide a rental rate that you will accept or call to dis-
cuss, 473–610 16–6.”
According to Victor, he had heard that the landlord was ne-
gotiating with Walmart to put a “Super Center” into the mall,
which includes a supermarket. Renewing Victor’s lease would
have contractually precluded the landlord from leasing the
space to Walmart in the same mall. Victor testified that he was
not sure that the deal with Walmart would go through, so he
was hoping that a month-to-month extension with the landlord
would lead to a long-term lease, in the event that the Walmart
deal was not agreed upon. Victor testified that the landlord was
refusing to renew the lease for Rite Aid, the tenant at the mall,
in furtherance of the same desire of the landlord to have
Walmart open a superstore which would also include the space
occupied by Rite Aid, as well as the space occupied by Oliva.
Victor further testified that Walmart decided not to open the
superstore, and ultimately both Rite Aid and Oliva left the mall,
and both properties are still vacant and unrented as of the close
of the hearing.
On December 19, 2013, Victor sent the following email to
Spina:
“I am prepared to pay 45,000.00 per month including taxes
and charges. This is pushing it considering what is transpiring
in the cases please respond.”
According to Victor, shortly after this offer was made, he
had a pleasant conversation with Spina during which Spina, on
behalf of landlord, agreed to the 45,000 per month offer for an
extension. However, this alleged agreement was never reduced
to writing.
On January 24, 2013, the Respondent received a letter in-
forming it that it needed to vacate the premises on January 31,
2013. Victor asserts that he then had a conversation with Spina
and asked him what had happened with the lease, saying to him
“I thought we had a deal.” Spina informed Victor that the own-
er decided not to do it. Victor testified that he discussed with
Spina an amount of $50,000 per month, with 2-month notice to
vacate, in order to properly remove equipment and product.
According to Victor, Spina agreed to this proposal, which Vic-
tor summarized in an email to Spina as follows: “As per our
recent agreement I will pay $50,000 per month on a month-to-
month basis. I agree to the present lease terms so far as remov-
al of equipment and products. Any damage caused by the re-
moval I will repair. The rental of $50,000 should help to defer
the cost of any other removal issues. I would like 2 months’
notice if possible when I need to vacate the premises in order to
remove equipment and product.” This alleged agreement was
never reduced to writing.
Subsequently, Oliva was subject to an eviction proceeding.
During this proceeding the judge ordered that Oliva vacate the
premises by March 31, 2014, and to pay $50,000 per month
rent unil that date.
In mid-February of 2014, Oliva posted a sign in its store that
the store will be closing on February 22, 2014. The store
closed on that date. Over the next month, Oliva spent time
taking out the equipment and cleaning up the store, and left the
premises on March 31, 2014, as per the judge’s order in the
eviction proceedings.
Frantz Hanley is the Recorder for Local 464. That position
is the second in command at the Union Local, under the Un-
ion’s president. Hanley telephoned Victor Laracca in early
January of 2014. Hanley told Victor that he had heard that
Victor was opening a new store in Whippany. Victor replied
that there would be a new store opening in Whippany, but it
would be his son Roberto’s store, and Roberto would be the
owner. Hanley asked Victor whether the Whippany supermar-
ket would have meat, deli and seafood departments. Victor
replied that the store is going to be more like a farmers market,
but that it would have a meat department, deli department, and
a seafood department.
Hanley responded that the Union expects that the deli, meat,
and seafood employees at this store will be represented by the
Union. Victor replied that “we do not intend to and this store is
not going to be union. It is not our intent to have this store
union. We can’t afford it.” Hanley answered that according to
the collective-bargaining agreement when you open a new
store, just like he’s done in the past when he purchased stores,
through accretion, they automatically become union stores.
Victor repeated that the store was going to be nonunion.
Hanley stated that he thought they had a problem: You know
you disagree with me and I disagree with you.. Victor then told
Hanley that he should call Roberto and talk to him, since he is
the owner of the Whippany store.
Shortly after this conversation Hanley had a conversation
with Maniaci. Hanley informed Maniaci that if Victor opened
up a new store nonunion without a contract, then the union was
going to picket the store. Maniaci replied asking why Hanley
was “breaking their chops?” Maniaci asked why are you harm-
ing the father because it was his son’s store; and Roberto had
OLIVA SUPERMARKETS LLC 11
only one store. Hanley responded that it was nothing personal,
but if he let one go others would follow. He added “you know
what if I had 10 non-union Farmtastics in New Jersey.”
My findings with respect to these conversations are based on
a compilation of the credited portions of the testimony of Han-
ley, Victor Laracca, Maniaci, and Hicks and employee Alan
Hatten, who heard Victor Laracca’s comments in his phone
conversation with Hanley.
I credit Victor Laracca, corroborated by Hicks, that Victor
told Hanley that the Whippany store was Roberto’s store, and
that he (Hanley) should contact Roberto. Similarly Maniaci
also told Hanley that it was Roberto’s store. I therefore do not
credit Hanley’s testimony that he didn’t know that the Whippa-
ny store was Roberto’s store at that time.
However, I do credit Hanley that Victor told him during this
conversation that the Whippany store was going to be nonun-
ion, and that we cannot afford the union contract. I note that
Maniaci’s testimony implicitly corroborated Hanley’s testimo-
ny in this regard inasmuch as Hanley told Maniaci that if he
(Victor) opens the store nonunion that the union was going to
picket the store. That testimony is supportive of Hanley’s tes-
timony that Victor informed that the store was not going to be
union. Further, employee Allen Hatten recalled Victor telling
someone on the phone “there’s going to be a store and it’s not
going to be unionized.” I find this testimony also supportive of
Hanley’s testimony in this regard.
Finally, I also rely on the fact that, as will be described more
fully below, it had been decided by the Laraccas that the
Farmtastic store would not be a union store, because they could
not afford the union contract. I therefore find it likely that Vic-
tor would have informed Hanley of the decision when Hanley
requested that the Farmtastic store recognize the union and
apply the contract.
D. The Opening of the Farmtastic Store
As detailed above, the Farmtastic store in Whippany opened
for business on May 7, 2014. As also related above, the open-
ing was delayed due to construction issues. It was expected
that it could be opened in February 2014, but additional prob-
lems resulting from a failure to pass inspection due to grease
trays and separation of waste water and trash caused additional
delays to rectify these deficiencies. Finally, the problems un-
covered in the inspection were corrected, all fees due to the
township were paid, and RL Markets was permitted to open the
store on May 7, 2014.
As also detailed above, the Cedar Knolls store operated by
Oliva closed on February 22, 2014, and left the premises on
March 31, 2014, after disposing of equipment and cleaning out
the store pursuant to the order of the Judge.
According to testimony of Roberto Laracca, he initially be-
lieved that the Whippany store would be opened much sooner
than May of 2014, but construction delays, including a failure
to pass final inspection by the Township, caused the opening to
be delayed until May 7, 2014.
Roberto testified that he had a website set up for hiring of
staff in early 2012, and received a number of applications. He
asserts that he in fact hired a number of cashiers from the web-
site, in 2012, but never completed the process of the hiring
since the construction delayed the opening and all the appli-
cants were students, whose availability was uncertain. Re-
spondent did not produce any job applications or any documen-
tary evidence reflecting the alleged hires, although it was sub-
poenaed by the General Counsel.
Prior to the closing of the Cedar Knolls store, sometime in
January of 2013, Bruce Shivas, who had been deli manager for
Oliva at the Cedar Knolls store, had conversations with Victor
Laracca about the problems Victor was having with the land-
lord. Victor informed Shivas that he was in discussions about
extending the lease on the store with the landlord, and the land-
lord is resisting, and they had not reached any agreement. Vic-
tor also told Shivas that if he could not extend the lease, he
would have to close down the store. Shivas testified that the
Rite Aid store which was in the mall had already closed be-
cause the landlord wouldn’t renew its lease.
When Shivas found out that the store would be closing in
mid-February of 2014, he approached Adam Shapiro, the store
manager at Cedar Knolls. Shivas was aware that the Whippany
store was going to open up and that it was going to be named
Farmtastic, and that Roberto was going to be the owner of that
store. Shivas asked Shapiro what he was going to be doing in
view of the fact that Cedar Knoll was closing. Shapiro told
Shivas that he was probably going to go over there as manager.
Shivas replied that in order for him to take a manager job, he
would need a decent wage and insurance. Shapiro answered
that if he knew anything he would let Shivas know.
A couple of days before the Cedar Knolls store closed, in
late February of 2014, Roberto approached Shapiro and asked
him to be the store manager at the Farmtastic store. Roberto
told Shapiro that he had done a good job managing the Cedar
Knolls store for Victor and, although he (Roberto) didn’t know
when the store would open, if Shapiro could hang on a little
while, Roberto would hire him as manager. Shapiro responded
negatively at first. He told Roberto that he wanted to get out of
the supermarket business, and was considering buying a
Snyder’s pretzel route. Shapiro added he was tired of the su-
permarket business, and was very upset about the Cedar Knolls
closing. Shapiro noted that he had been employed at that store
even before it was taken over by Victor, when it was owned by
the previous Foodtown owner.
Over the next few days, Roberto sent texts to Shapiro, asking
him to reconsider, and telling him that he really wanted Shapiro
to come to work at Farmtastic. During this time, Shapiro also
received texts from Daniella Laracca with whom Shapiro was
friendly, asking him to accept the offer to be the manager at
Farmtastic.
Shapiro then discussed the issue with his father and his wife.
His father gave his opinion that the Snyder’s route was very
expensive, around $300,000, and pointed out that Shapiro’s son
is only 6 or 7 years old. Shapiro’s wife suggested that he
should accept the job as manager, and if it didn’t work out, he
could go buy a Snyder’s route.
Shapiro was at that point still working at Cedar Knolls, help-
ing out with the shutdown of the store. Shapiro then discussed
the issue with Victor. Shapiro told Victor I guess you know
that your son offered me a job at his store. Victor replied that
he knew. Shapiro told Victor that he wanted to buy a Snyder’s
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 12
route, and informed him of what his father had said to him.
Victor responded that there was always going to be a Snyder’s
route available, and added that Shapiro loves this business, it is
in Shapiro’s heart and in his blood and that Snyder’s is a whole
different business. Victor said that Shapiro should do what he
wants to do, but that Victor didn’t think it was a bad idea to
accept the position as manager at Farmtastic.
After that conversation, Shapiro spoke to Roberto and in-
formed him that he would accept the job. Roberto asked
Shapiro what salary he was making at Cedar Knolls. Shapiro
told him his salary, and Roberto said that he would offer
Shapiro the same salary at Farmtastic, and the same benefits,
including health insurance. Roberto told Shapiro that he didn’t
know when the store would be opening and he would get back
to Shapiro when he knew more. They didn’t discuss hiring of
staff at that time.
Over the next 2 months, Shapiro received phone calls from a
number of Cedar Knolls employees, who had been laid off, and
who informed Shapiro that they had applied online for positions
at the Farmtastic store in Whippany. Shapiro confirmed to
these employees, who included both employees in the Local
464 bargaining unit as well as employees in the Local 1262
bargaining unit, that he was going to be the store manager at
Farmtastic, and that he would get back to them when the hiring
process was ready to begin.
Shapiro then went on unemployment, as did a number of the
other former Cedar Knolls employees. Some of them obtained
jobs at other supermarkets.
In early April of 2014, Roberto informed Shapiro that the
store would be opening soon, and they went down to the Whip-
pany store to discuss staffing. Shapiro looked over the store
and talked with Roberto about staffing and recommended how
many and which employees he would need. Shapiro had
looked over the online applications and had as noted spoken to
a number of Cedar Knolls employees on the phone, who had
expressed interest in working at Farmtastic. Roberto informed
Shapiro that he was just starting out, and that he could not “give
the world” to the employees. Shapiro replied that he would
look at it, and see what he could do. Thus, Shapiro determined
what salaries to offer the employees, as well as the benefits.
Shapiro asked Roberto about health care and Roberto replied
that he would offer health care only to full-time employees.
Roberto also informed Shapiro that the store was not going to
be a union store.
Later on in April, Shapiro began interviewing prospective
employees for jobs at Farmtastic. He began by hiring his de-
partment heads, the managers, and assistant managers. After
hiring this group of employees, he moved on to the hiring of the
remainder of the staff, which involved a number of part-time
employees.
When he interviewed applicants both for positions in the Lo-
cal 1262 and the Local 464 units, Shapiro told them the salary
that Farmtastic would be offering, what the benefits would be,
sick leave, vacations, and that health care should be provided
only to full-time employees. Shapiro informed all applicants
that the store was going to be nonunion. Most of the applicants
accepted Shapiro’s offer of employment at the terms that he
offered them. A couple of employees didn’t accept. For exam-
ple, Joseph Harris, the seafood manager at Cedar Knolls, did
not accept the offer. Shapiro then offered the seafood manager
position to Catherine Jaconetta, who had been a meat wrapper
at the Cedar Knolls store.
Edward Campbell had been the meat department manager at
Cedar Knolls, but he also declined Shapiro’s offer to work as
meat manager at the Whippany store. Shapiro then offered the
meat manager position to Ricardo Lopez who had been em-
ployed at Cedar Knolls as a meat cutter. Lopez accepted the
job.
Allen Hatten was employed at the Cedar Knolls store as a
part-time employee, on the night shift. Hatten had been previ-
ously employed at the Whippany store, when it was a
Foodtown, prior to its closing at that location, when it was tak-
en over by Pathmark. Hatten then became employed at the
Cedar Knolls store. He was initially employed at the Cedar
Knolls Foodtown, when it was owned by the prior owner before
Victor Laracca took over the store. Hatten had been a full-time
employee with the prior owner, but then switched for family
reasons to part time, before Victor Laracca took over ownership
of the store. Thus, he was a part-time employee, with respect to
employment at Cedar Knolls.
When Hatten interviewed with Shapiro for a position at
Whippany, Shapiro offered Hatten the position of assistant deli
manager. He offered Hatten a salary of $15.30 per hour, which
was the same salary that he was making. Hatten replied that the
salary was not enough. Shapiro responded that Hatten would
be getting insurance from Farmtastic. Hatten replied that he
doesn’t need insurance, since his wife had insurance. Hatten
suggested a salary of $16 per hour. Since Hatten was not going
to need insurance, and because Shapiro believed that he was a
good employee, and should receive a raise for becoming assis-
tant manager, Shapiro agreed to Hatten’s request for a salary of
$16 per hour.
Shapiro also informed Hatten, as he did all other employees
whom he interviewed, that the Farmtastic store at Whippany
was going to be nonunion. Hatten accepted the job. Shapiro
testified that he believed that some of the Cedar Knolls em-
ployees who refused to accept his offers of employment at
Whippany, did so because he told them that it would be a non-
union store.
Ultimately Shapiro hired nine former Cedar Knolls employ-
ees from the Local 464 bargaining unit.

Carol Demarsico
Alan Hatten
Catherine Jaconetta
Ricardo Lopez
Pharins Paoulante
John Sagareso
Bruce Shivas
Robert Taylor
Mark Salgado

The total complement of employees in the Local 464 unit at
Cedar Knolls was 12 employees.
The Cedar Knolls store included 20 employees in the Local
1262 bargaining unit, which included grocery, bakery, front
end, and produce employees as well as Patti Hicks. The record
OLIVA SUPERMARKETS LLC 13
reflects that 10 of these employees were hired by Farmtastic,
including Tom Bleaken, the produce manager, and Vincent
Varolo, the bakery manager.
Patti Hicks, as noted above, was and still is the bookkeeper
for V&V, Oliva, and RL Markets, but she has never been paid
by or on the payroll of RL Markets or Farmtastic. Hicks was a
longtime employee of Victor Laracca’s stores, starting out at
the Newark store owned by Victor on 6th Street, and then was
employed at the Lake Hiawatha store and V&V and the Cedar
Knolls store under Oliva. According to Hicks, she was a mem-
ber of the Local 1262 bargaining unit at Lake Hiawatha and
also she was the shop steward. She moved the office where she
worked at Cedar Knolls in 2005. Hicks was paid by V&V until
2005 and at that time, after she began working at Cedar Knolls,
she was paid by Oliva. After the Cedar Knolls store closed, she
began to be paid by V & V once again. Thus, she has never
been paid by RL Markets and Farmtastic although once the
Whippany store opened, she has been working at that location,
in the office, performing bookkeeping services for all three
Laracca entities.
Daniella Laracca as noted above, assists Hicks in bookkeep-
ing at the Farmtastic location on a part-time basis, working for
her twice a week for approximately 16 hours total per week.
While at Cedar Knolls, Daniella Laracca worked full time as-
sisting Hicks with bookkeeping tasks, working on all three
companies’ business. When the Farmtastic store opened, Dan-
iella Laracca was involved with running the juice bar at the
store, which took up most of her time at the store. There was
no juice bar at the Oliva, Cedar Knolls Store.
Hicks received her health insurance from Local 1262 and,
according to Hicks, is still receiving health coverage from Lo-
cal 1262, ever since the Cedar Knolls store closed.
Daniella Laracca receives health coverage through the com-
pany plan offered which covers Victor Laracca, Roberto Larac-
ca, and Adam Shapiro. Since the Farmtastic store opened this
coverage is paid for by V&V.
As I outlined above, Hicks in her capacity of bookkeeper for
all three Laracca entities would transfer funds from bank ac-
counts from one entity to another, depending on where money
was needed during the time that all three entities were operating
concurrently.
As also noted above, the Farmtastic store operated by RL
Markets opened for business on May 7, 2014. The store had a
Grand Opening on that day, which was attended by numerous
representatives from Allegiance, as well as the Laracca family.
The Grand Opening was covered by the Food Trade News,
an industry periodical. The issue contained a number of photo-
graphs with comments and headlines. The first page contained
a picture of Roberto Laracca, plus three Allegiance representa-
tives. The text under this picture reads as follows: “Allegiance
Retail Service New Farmtastic Market Banner debuted earlier
this month when the Laracca family opened its newest store in
Whippany, New Jersey.” The text then states “at the grand
opening, Roberto Laracca of Farmtastic Market,” another lists
the names of the three Allegiance representatives, and states
that more photos are on L.T.D.
Page 29 of the periodical is entitled, “New Allegiance Ban-
ner ‘Farmtastic Market’ Unveiled by Laracca Family in Whip-
pany, New Jersey.” The page then includes 10 pictures of rep-
resentatives of the Laracca family along with various Alle-
giance officials. The first picture consists of five Allegiance
representatives, with the following text next to it: “Allegiance
Retail Services’ new Farmtastic Market debuted earlier this
month when the Laracca family opened its newest store in
Whippany N.J. at the site of the former Pathmark unit. On hand
to make sure all runs smoothly on opening are Allegiance Re-
tail Services (1-R),” and then named the four Allegiance offi-
cials in the picture.
The next picture is of Victor Laracca and Gino Palummo of
Nebraskaland. The text reads, “Victor Laracca of Farmtastic
Market is joined by Gino Palummo of Nebraskaland.” Below
that is another picture with Victor Laracca and an Allegiance
representative. The text says, “Tony Anelo of Allegiance Re-
tail Services chats with Victor Laracca of Farmtastic Market.”
Next to that picture is a picture of Roberto Laracca with two
representatives from Imperial Distributors. The text reads,
“Imperial Distributors’ Ron Ralston and Dave Dulude congrat-
ulate Farmtastic Roberto Laracca on the new store.” Another
picture consists of Daniella Laracca and two Allegiance repre-
sentatives plus a representative of Bimbo Bakeries. The text
states that “this foursome features Daniella Laracca, Farmtastic
Market,” and then names the other representatives in the pic-
ture.
After the Farmtastic store opened, Victor Laracca used the
Whippany office, and conducted business for V & V and to
some extent Oliva from this office. Victor did not pay any rent
to RL Markets for use of that office.
As I have noted above, V & V, Oliva, and the Laracca family
paid money to RL Markets and guaranteed loans from banks to
RL Markets and at times paid loans directly to banks and in-
voices to suppliers on behalf of RL Markets. While Hicks and
the Laraccas contend that there were loans that were supposed
to be paid back, no documents were presented which reflected
any of these loans, their terms, when they were to be paid back,
or what interest rate if any, was to be paid on these loans by RL
Markets. The record does reflect that Oliva’s 2012 tax return
states under a listing of Current Assets, “loan—RL Markets
$548,948.”
Victor Laracca, as detailed above, shared an office at the
Farmtastic Store with Roberto and Hicks, and was there on a
daily basis. He would walk around the store and give some
instructions to employees, such as sweep the floor, clean aisles,
or instruct employees where to unload deliveries.
Victor would also make suggestions to managers, particular-
ly Jaconetta, the seafood manager, about products, product
placement, what to order, most of which she would follow,
since she was aware that Victor was very experienced and
knowledgeable about seafood and she was inexperienced in that
department, having worked previously in the meat department
as a meat wrapper.
Jaconetta was aware that Roberto was the owner of the store,
and not Victor, and that her day-to-day supervisor was Shapiro.
Other Farmtastic employees who testified also clearly were
aware that Roberto was the owner of the store.
Local 464 put up a picket line on the first day that the Whip-
pany store opened, where picketing continued through the dates
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 14
of the trial. The Union made no effort or attempt to organize
the employees at the RL Market’s Farmtastic Store. Nor did
the Union ever contact Roberto Laracca or make a demand of
Roberto that RL Markets recognize the Union or apply the
contract to its employees.
The Union did, as reflected above, file a charge with the Re-
gion on June 5, 2014, alleging that Oliva and RL Markets, as
alter egos and a single employer, violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act by repudiating its union contract with the Union,
and by refusing to bargain with the Union and refusing to honor
its collective-bargaining agreement at the Whippany location.
III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
It is alleged and asserted by General Counsel that Respond-
ent RL Markets and Respondent Oliva are alter egos and alter-
natively that the two entities constitute a single employer. It is
further alleged that, as consequence of these findings, the Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
refusing to recognize and bargain with Local 464 (the Union),
as the collective-bargaining representative of its Whippany,
New Jersey location, and by refusing to apply the terms of its
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union to its unit em-
ployees at the Whippany store.
The Board generally will find an alter-ego relationship when
two entities have substantially identical management, business
purposes, operations, equipment, customers, supervision, and
ownership. Not all of these indicia need be present, and no one
of them is a prerequisite to finding an alter-ego relationship.
Unlawful motivation is not a necessary element of an alter-ego
finding, but the Board also considers whether the purpose be-
hind the creation of the suspected alter ego was to evade re-
sponsibilities under the Act. See Diverse Steel, Inc., 349
NLRB 946, 946 (2007). McCarthy Construction Co., 355
NLRB 50, 51 (2012); E. L. C. Electric, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 20
slip op. at 9 (2010).
“Alter ego” and “single employer” are related but separate
concepts. A.D. Conner, Inc., 357 NLRB 1770, 1787 (2011).
The factors considered in the analysis are similar with the ex-
ception of motive. El Vocero, de Puerto Rico, 357 NLRB
1585, 1605 (2011). In assessing single-employer status the
Board focuses on four factors: (1) common ownership and fi-
nancial control; (2) integration of operations; (3) common con-
trol of labor relations; (4) common management. Rogan Bros.
Sanitation Inc., 362 NLRB No. 61 slip op. at 3 (2015); Spurlino
Materials LLC, 357 NLRB 1510 (2011). As with alter ego
status, no single factor is controlling and not all need be present
in order to establish a single employer status. It ultimately
depends on all the circumstances. Carr Finishing Specialties,
358 NLRB 1766, 1776 (2012); Newark Electric, 362 NLRB
No. 44 slip op. at 10 (2015). In analyzing both single employer
and alter ego status, the Board also places considerable reliance
on the absence of an arm’s-length relationship among seeming-
ly independent companies. Rogan Bros., supra 362 NLRB No.
61 slip op. at 3; Newark Electric, supra 362 NLRB No. 44, slip
op. at 10; Spurlino Materials, supra, 357 NLRB at 1517–1518;
Diverse Steel supra, 349 NLRB at 951; SRC Painting, 346
NLRB 707, 221 (2006); Carr Finishing Specialties, 358 NLRB
1766, 1776 (2012); Lebanite Corp., 346 NLRB 748 (2006);
Shane Steel Processing, 353 NLRB 522 (2008); A & P Brush
Mfg. Corp., 323 NLRB 303, 308 (1997)); Denzil S. Alkire, 259
NLRB 1323, 1324–1325 (1982); Blumenfeld Theatres Circuit,
240 NLRB 206, 216 (1979).
In assessing both the alter ego and single-employer relation-
ship between the entities, I initially note the Food News issue,
an industry periodical which covered the Grand Opening of the
RL Market Farmtastic store in Whippany, in early May of
2014. The text under the picture of Roberto Laracca with sev-
eral Allegiance representatives read as follows: “Allegiance
Retail Service New Farmtastic Market debuted earlier this
month when the Laracca family opened its newest store in
Whippany, N.J.” Later on in the issue, several pictures were
shown with members of the Laracca family, Victor, Roberto
and Daniella Laracca along with different representatives of
Allegiance or other industry officials. The text identified Vic-
tor, Roberto and Daniella as representatives of Farmtastic Mar-
ket and the page is entitled, “New Allegiance Banner
‘Farmtastic Market’ unveiled by Laracca family in Whippany
N.J.”
These statements in the Food News quarterly depict the evi-
dence disclosed on this record, that the Farmtastic store in
Whippany was and is part of the Laracca family business, and
that the entities are alter egos, and a single employer.
While Roberto is the owner of RL Markets and Victor is the
owner of Oliva, identical ownership is not required in order to
establish alter ego status of those companies. The Board has
repeatedly held that ownership in different companies by mem-
bers of the same family constitutes substantially identical own-
ership, sufficient to support a finding of alter ego status. A & P
Brush, supra, 323 NLRB at 308; (mother and son) Midwest
Precision Heating & Cooling, 341 NLRB 435 (2004) (father
and son); Alexander Painting Inc., 344 NLRB 1346, 1353
(2005) (husband and wife), Fallon Williams, 336 NLRB 602,
603 (2001) (husband and wife); Industrial TurnAround Corp.,
321 NLRB 181, 184, 187 (1996) (husband, wife, and brother);
AC Electric, 333 NLRB 987 1001 (2001) (husband and wife);
Goldin-Feldman, Inc., 295 NLRB 359, 372 (1989) (father and
daughter); McDonald’s Ready-Mix Concrete, 246 NLRB 152,
154 (1979) (father and son).
Furthermore, Victor, Josephine and Daniella Laracca used
their personal and business assets to secure the financing for the
Whippany store. The evidence discloses that absent the family
financial backing and assistance in obtaining loans, Roberto
Laracca would not have opened the Farmtastic store in Whip-
pany. E.L. Electric Co., supra, 359 NLRB No. 20 slip op. at 9
(Establishment and survival of alter ego company dependent on
other company, although ownership was not the same); Goldin
Feldman, supra, at 295 NLRB 41 at fn. 3 (alter ego status
found where new company would have had severe difficulties
in continuing in business had it not been for the assistance of
father in obtaining loans for new company, and willingness to
accept late payments on outstanding loans to father’s company;
Board concluded that father continued to exercise financial
control over new company and, in fact the business’ very live-
lihood was dependent on father’s ability and willingness to
negotiate with the bank and provide financial guarantees that
allowed the bank to extend company’s line of credit).
OLIVA SUPERMARKETS LLC 15
The facts in Goldin Feldman, supra, are nearly identical to
the instant case. But for the loans to RL Market, which were
negotiated by Victor and secured by the personal and business
assets of Victor, as well as his wife and daughter, RL Market
would not have been able to survive and the store would never
have been opened. Thus the RL Market, Whippany store is
simply another Laracca family supermarket and is financially
indistinguishable from Victor’s other supermarket operations,
even though Roberto’s name appears on the corporate and fi-
nancial documents as the sole owner of RL Markets.
The business purpose and operations of the Cedar Knolls and
Whippany stores are substantially the same. They were both
supermarkets, selling Foodtown products (although not under
the Foodtown banner), with delicatessen, produce, seafood and
meat departments, as well as frozen foods and other products.
Both stores were members of the Allegiance Corporation,
which dictates that the stores use the same purveyors, merchan-
dising, and marketing mechanisms, including circulars and
sales items, and technical support. The product line at the
Whippany store is substantially the same as that maintained at
Cedar Knolls. To its customers, employees, union agents, and
owners of other supermarkets, the Whippany store appears
nearby identical to the Cedar Knolls store.
The Farmtastic store in Whippany is only three miles away
from the Cedar Knolls store and in the same township. Conse-
quently, it serves the same customers. Indeed, some employees
hired by Farmtastic for work at the Whippany store had worked
that location when the store was operated as a Pathmark Su-
permarket. Thus RL Markets and Oliva conduct the same busi-
ness in the same market and have common customers. Indus-
trial TurnAround Corp., supra, 321 NLRB at 187; Sobeck
Corp., 321 NLRB 259, 267 (1996); Fugazy Continental Corp.,
265 NLRB 1301, 1302–1303 (1982); International Harvester,
247 NLRB 791, 798 (1980).
Notably, in this regard, Victor testified that he used to live in
Whippany, coached the soccer team there, and was well known
in the community. Further, when the Cedar Knolls store went
bankrupt, he was urged by residents of Whippany to take over
the store, and open up the supermarket. This was part of his
motivation for deciding to do so and to purchase the assets and
open the store as an LLC under the name Oliva.
The testimony of Victor Laracca demonstrates his involve-
ment in the management and decisionmaking of RL Markets,
and that he considered himself to be an integral part of its oper-
ations. He continually used the pronoun “we” to refer to ac-
tions taken regarding the store’s renovations and its financing.
Indeed, the record reflected that Victor was the primary repre-
sentative of RL Markets in dealing with the architect, the land-
lord, the construction company and the banks. I note in this
regard, the record discloses that emails between Victor and the
contractor, sent by Hicks on Victor’s behalf, discussed the
plans for the construction and the revisions. I note that Sar-
kasian, on behalf of Coldstat, emailed Hicks on March 29,
2012, asking “could you get Victor to give you the name he
wants to use on the new paperwork for the new store?” Hicks
responded that RL Markets is the company name and Roberto,
the responsible party and Farmtastic the store name. Further,
Victor used the first person “I” when stating he was considering
selling V & V in order to satisfy RL Markets debts which
demonstrated that he was and is the ultimate decision maker for
all three entities. See Johnstown Corp., 313 NLRB 170, 171
(1993), enfd. in relevant part, 41 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 1994).
(finding that a witness’s use of pronoun “we” demonstrates that
he was an important hand in decisionmaking in new company,
despite his testimony that he had no involvement in operating
it).
Similarly, the record establishes that Sharon Shepherd, the
deli manager at V & V’s Lake Hiawatha store, had heard about
three years before the Whippany store opened, that the Larac-
cas were opening a store in Whippany, New Jersey. Shepherd
told Roberto, who at the time was the store manager at V & V
that she had heard that they were opening a new store in Whip-
pany. Roberto answered “yes, we are.” A year later, Shepherd
asked Roberto if the new store in Whippany is going to be
Foodtown and is it going to be nonunion? Roberto replied that
the store is not going to be a Foodtown and it will not be a un-
ion store. Over the next year, Shepherd had several conversa-
tions with Roberto about the Whippany store and also how
things were going and when it would be opened. Roberto an-
swered “we ran into problems and it’s going to be open soon.”
The record evidence of Hick’s intermingling of funds amongst
the accounts of the three Laracca business entities demonstrate
that the financial management of the RL Market Whippany
store is identical to the financial management of Oliva and V &
V. Further, the lack of arms-length negotiation that attended
the extensive comingling of funds, the lack of interest charged
on monies provided by one company to the other is also signifi-
cant. Patti Hicks has never been paid by RL Markets, but only
by V & V and Oliva during her employment with the Laracca
family enterprises. Yet she performed bookkeeping services
along with Daniella Laracca for RL Markets during the entire
time of RL Markets, from its formation in 2011, and continuing
after the store opened in May of 2014. Financial management
for the Farmtastic Whippany store was through long time
bookkeeper Patti Hicks, assisted by Daniella Laracca, who
performed bookkeeping for all three Laracca supermarkets,
using the same financial programs, on the same computer, and
in the same physical location.2 The above is further demonstra-
tive of the interrelation of operations between the entities, and
support for any conclusion as detailed above, that the Whippa-
ny Farmtastic store was part of the Laracca family business.
The record reflects that the financial management of both
stores is substantially identical. Victor controls the financing;
the lack of any documentation showing the loans and their de-
tails from one company to the other, along with payments made
directly by Oliva and V & V on behalf of RL Markets show
that the Whippany store was simply substituted for Cedar
Knolls as one place of a large family business operation run by
Victor Varacca. Crossroads Electric Inc., 341 NLRB 1502,
1506 (2004) (alter ego found where bookkeeper was perform-
ing bookkeeping functions for both companies); A & P Brush,
supra, 323 NLRB at 208 (extensive involvement of family the
2 The physical location changed when Cedar Knolls changed, and
Hicks moved to the Whippany store where the bookkeeping for all
stores was conducted.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 16
establishment of new business indicates alter ego status, since
mother retained financial interest in success or failure of new
company although she was not an owner or manager of busi-
ness); Id. Midwest Precision Heating & Cooling, 341 NLRB at
437 (lack of arms-length transaction between companies; sons
paid some money on note for purchase of assets from father’s
companies, but rest was forgiven, making transfer of assets
essentially an inheritance); Carr Finishing Specialties, supra,
358 NLRB 1766, 1776 (alter ego status found where lines of
responsibility crossed with comingling of funds, where one
person handled financial obligations for both companies, and
paid obligations of one company from the account of the other
company); E. L. C. Electric, supra, 359 NLRB at No. 20, slip
op. at 9 (finding lack of arms-length business relationship
where agreements to use materials were merely verbal, never
reduced to writing, no interest was paid on loans and unpaid
rent was never collected); A.C. Electric, supra, 333 NLRB at
1001 (less than arm’s-length transaction regarding transfer of
rights to equipment; some vans sold well below market value,
and failure to pay anything for start-up tools and equipment);
Sobeck Corp., 321 NLRB 259, 267 (lack of arm’s-length deal-
ings coupled with accommodations to family interests; transac-
tions among two companies and family members were for all
practical purposes a matter of Frank Sobeck dealing with him-
self). Both firms used the same accounting and law firms. SRC
Painting, supra, 346 NLRB at 721 (significant lack of arm’s-
length relationship; no lease documents or rent paid for space;
no documentation of loans between companies, and no interest
paid on loans); El Vocero De Puerto Rico, Inc., 357 NLRB
1585, 1586, fn. 3.3
Operational management of the Whippany store rested pri-
marily with the same individuals who ran the Cedar Knolls
store. Construction and renovations were handled by Victor,
who also handled lease negotiations and a subsequent rent set-
tlement judgment with the landlord, which Victor signed on
behalf of RL Markets. Daily retail operations at Whippany
were controlled primarily by Adam Shapiro who ran Victor’s
Cedar Knolls store for 10 years until it closed in February of
2014. When Shapiro was given control, he set wage rates and
benefits for the RL Markets employees, except for health bene-
fits, which were decided by Roberto, who concluded that he
would furnish health benefits only to full-time employees.
The majority of the department heads for all departments re-
tained their positions at Whippany. A number of former Cedar
Knolls employees were hired at the Whippany store, and most
significantly a majority of Farmtastic’s Whippany employees in
the Local 464 bargaining unit were former employees of the
Cedar Knolls store of Oliva, who were directly contacted by
Adam Shapiro and interviewed by Shapiro, as soon as the
Whippany store was ready to open.
As I have noted above, the Board does consider whether one
entity was created by the owners of the first for purposes of
evading labor responsibilities, in its alter ego analysis. Howev-
3 Alter ego status found where, during the first year, the new com-
pany, similar to RL Markets here, was “almost entirely dependent on
the continuous transfer of funds and in kind contributions” from the
original company.
er, the Board has consistently held, supported by a majority of
circuit court of appeals, that such a motive is not a requirement
for finding alter ego status. Newark Electric, 362 NLRB No.
44, slip op. at 10; Fallon-Williams, 336 NLRB 602, fn. 7
(2001); Johnstown Corp., supra, 313 NLRB 170. Here Re-
spondents contend that RL Markets was not created in order to
avoid obligations to the Union, inasmuch as RL Markets was
formed in 2011, and they intended to operate both stores at the
same time. It further argues that it did not intend to close the
Cedar Knolls store, and was fighting with the landlord to renew
its lease, until it was forced to close in February of 2014, when
the landlord refused to renew the lease.
In view of the above, I cannot find that the creation of RL
Markets was motivated by an intent to avoid union obligations.
However, as noted, it is not essential for such a finding to es-
tablish alter ego status, and I conclude that the facts here are
sufficient to prove that RL Markets and Oliva are alter egos.
The facts are as follows: (1) the RL Markets, Whippany
store was secured by the Laracca family assets; (2) Victor La-
racca oversees the ongoing financial operations of all three
Laracca stores; (3) the Whippany store hired most of the Cedar
Knolls managers and supervisors, a substantial portion of the
Cedar Knolls employees, including a majority of the Cedar
Knolls 464 unit employees; (4) the Whippany store is managed
on a day to day basis by Adam Shapiro, the store manager at
Oliva, who hired all the RL Markets employees and determined
their salaries and benefits; (5) the employees perform substan-
tially the same tasks they performed in Cedar Knolls at the
Whippany store, operated in the same township, not 3 miles
from the former Cedar Knolls location of Oliva, using similar
equipment. Thus RL Markets is engaged in the same business
with the same business purpose, and to a significant extent, the
same customers. Sobeck Corp., 321 NLRB at 267; SRC Paint-
ing, supra, 346 NLRB at 721; Fugazy Continental Corp., 265
NLRB 1301 (1982); (6) the lack of arm’s-length transactions
between the entities, particularly the comingling of assets,
payment of bills by one entity for the other’s obligations, the
lack of documentation for loans and for no interest on loans,
free rent for use of office, and common use of bookkeepers. El
Vocero De Puerto Rico, supra, 357 NLRB at 1606. (New com-
pany undercapitalized, also dependent on continuous transfer of
funds and contributions from other company, transfers without
documentation, and free office space supplied); Carr Finishing
Specialties, Inc., 358 NLRB 1766, 1776 (comingling of books);
Crossroads Electric, Inc., 343 NLRB 1502, 1506 (2004).
(Bookkeeping operations performed for both companies, being
paid only by one company); E. L. C. Electric, Inc., 359 NLRB
No. 20 slip op. at 9 (Financial assistance to new company no
interest on loans, tenant without collecting rent. Thus, assis-
tance received from company, without which new company
would have never been established or able to survive as a viable
business). Similarly, RL Markets, without the financial and
other assistance from Victor and his family and other business-
es, would never have been established or been able to survive
as a viable business.
In these circumstances, I conclude that the evidence is suffi-
cient to establish that RL Markets was and is an alter ego to
Oliva, and the change involved “a mere technical change in the

OLIVA SUPERMARKETS LLC 17
structure or identity of the employing entity . . .without, any
substantial change in its ownership or management.” Howard
Johnson Co. v. Detroit Joint Executive Board Hotel & Restau-
rant Employees, 417 U.S. 249, 259 fn. 5 (1974). AD Conner,
357 NLRB 1770, 1797 (2011).
General Counsel argues that although the creation of RL
Markets may not have been motivated by an intention to avoid
Oliva’s obligations to the Union, inasmuch as Oliva initially
intended to remain open, even when RL Markets would be in
full operation, that by the time Oliva closed and RL Markets
opened, the facts were different. Thus, by October of 2013,
Oliva was notified by the landlord that its lease was not going
to be renewed, and it needed to vacate the premises. Thereaf-
ter, Oliva was negotiating with the landlord only on the terms
of a month-to-month extension. Thus, the opportunity was
created to move the entire operation to Whippany. Victor testi-
fied, “we closed the store down and now the Whippany store is
not ready yet . . .,” because “we had this problem with the sew-
age.” Thus, General Counsel argues, and I agree, that but for
the unforeseen delays in getting approvals from the Hanover
Sewage Authority, the transition from Cedar Knolls to Whip-
pany would have been seamless. Further, Victor knew that the
imminent opening of the Wal-Mart near the Cedar Knolls
would preclude the landlord from offering a new long term
lease, and Respondents’ failure to perform any hiring for
Farmtastic in December of 2013 or January of 2014, even
though they expected that the store would open late January,
demonstrates that Respondents expected the Cedar Knolls em-
ployees to simply move to the Farmtastic, Whippany store as
soon as the Cedar Knolls lease expired.
The evidence overwhelmingly points to Respondents’ dis-
dain for the Union contract. Both Roberto and Victor testified
that they did not like the financial terms of the new contract;
they thought it was too much, and they could not afford it.
Victor admitted that he did not want to sign the union contract
that had been agreed to in 2012, on behalf of Oliva, although he
did eventually agree to sign it and be bound by it for his super-
visors. Victor told Piscatelli during negotiations that he should
not be required to pay the wages and benefits on the new con-
tract, and Maniaci was told by Victor that he didn’t want to go
ahead with the contract for his companies, because he wanted a
better deal than the contract provided.
Moreover, Victor informed Hanley of Local 464 that the
Whippany store would be nonunion; Roberto also informed
Adam Shapiro when he hired him to be the store manager, and
also, informed employee Sharon Sheppard, an employee, of
another part of the Laracca family business. Further, Shapiro
informed all of the employees whom he hired to work at the
Whippany RL Markets, Whippany store, that the store would
be nonunion when he interviewed them.
It is also notable that the decision to open the store as a
Farmtastic, and not as a Foodtown, was made in 2012, at
around the time of the negotiations for the new contract that V
& V and Oliva were not happy about signing. Victor and Rob-
erto were both aware that if they opened the store as a
Foodtown, the store would have been obligated to recognize the
union and apply the terms of the contract with Oliva to the
bargaining unit employees.
I therefore conclude that although the purpose and the crea-
tion of RL Markets may not have been to evade its responsibili-
ties under the Act, it is clear that the Laraccas (both Victor and
Roberto) did not desire union representation for the employees
of RL Markets, and told its employees and the union that fact.
A & P Brush Mfg. Corp., 323 NLRB 303, 304 (1997); Mining
Specialists, Inc., 314 NLRB 268, 272 (1994). I find that the
establishment and opening of RL Markets was consistent with a
desire to maintain a nonunion operation. A & P Brush, supra at
307 (finding that although the purpose of the creation of sales
company was because son wanted to be his own boss and start
his own business, mother owned old company, retained finan-
cial control over success or failure of new company, provided
financing for business, and new company was intended to and
was operated as a nonunion shop).
Accordingly, based upon the above analysis and precedent, I
conclude that Oliva and RL Markets were and are alter egos of
each other.
As I have also noted above, I also conclude that Oliva and
RL Markets are a single employer. Such a finding is warranted,
and viable, even absent a finding of alter ego status between the
companies. Rogan Brothers Sanitation, supra, 362 NLRB No.
61. Emcor Group, Inc., 330 NLRB 849 (2000).
As related above, the factors examined in assessing alter ego
and single-employer status are similar, except for the issue of
motive.
Further, the lack of arm’s-length relationship between the en-
tities is significant in the analysis of both issues and is particu-
larly significant in determining single employer status. Indeed,
the Board has repeatedly held that “the hallmark of a single
employer is the absence of an arm’s length relationship among
seemingly independent companies.” Bolivar-Tees, Inc., 349
NLRB 720 (2007) (single-employer relationship found where
one company was located in Mexico and the other in America,
where financial exigencies of one entity were met by the other);
RBE Electronics of S.D., 320 NLRB 80 (1995); Hydrolines,
Inc., 305 NLRB 416, 419 (1991); Rogan Brothers, supra slip
op. at 3. Such lack of an arm’s-length relationship is demon-
strated by bookkeeper’s performance of payroll functions for
both companies and by comingling of funds of the two entities
by one entity paying bills of the other, and by no interest loans
and free rent, and nondocumented transactions. Rogan Brothers
supra at 4–5 (controller same for both entities, checks issued to
repay loans from payroll of one company for debts owed by
other); Spurlino Materials, Inc., 357 NLRB 1510, 1516 (2011)
(controller runs accounting department for both companies);
Carr Finishing, supra, 358 NLRB at 1766 (Funds deposited
from one company into account of another, and one company
paid obligations of another). Grane Healthcare Co., 357 NLRB
1412, 1441 (2011) (Funds for purchase of a new facility jointly
borrowed and guaranteed by number of entities by owners of
entities.). Emcor Corp., 330 NLRB 849 fn. 1 (2000) (per-
formed payroll functions for both companies, and president of
old company was involved in construction of new facility);
Naperville Jeep/Dodge, 357 NLRB 2252, 2269 (2012) (sales
vehicles of balance between the two entities.); Emsing’s Su-
permarket, Inc. 284 NLRB 302, 304 (1987); enfd. 872 F.2d
1279 (7th Cir. 1989) (1984) (Finding of single employer status
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 18
is supported by propensity to operate both companies “in such a
manner that the exigencies of one would be met by the other,”
showing the relationship was not at arm’s length).
The facts here are quite similar in these respects to the facts
in the above cited precedent, and strongly support single em-
ployer status between Oliva and RL Markets. Indeed, the evi-
dence of record supports the conclusion that I have made
above, so correctly characterized in the Food News article, that
RL Markets was another new store in the Laracca family busi-
ness. As I have detailed above, Victor and the Laracca family
guaranteed RL Markets’ loans with personal guarantees as well
as with guarantees from Victor’s other business, V & V and
Oliva. The loans between the entities were not documented,
and no interest was paid or offered for on the loans, and no rent
was paid.
V & V, Oliva, or Victor used RL Markets property to con-
duct business for Oliva and V & V.
Patti Hicks was the bookkeeper for V & V, Oliva and RL
Markets, alter egos; she was never paid by RL Markets. Funds
were comingled among the entities, and RL Markets’ bills were
paid directly by V & V and or Oliva. Victor, although not an
officer or director of RL Markets, negotiated the lease for RL
Markets, handled and negotiated the construction for the new
supermarket and was involved in the architect plans for the
configuration of the Whippany store. Thus, the facts establish
that the relationship between RL Markets and Oliva appears to
be one of a close family rather than one between independent
companies. Blumenfeld Theatres Circuit, 240 NLRB 206, 216
(1979) (Office furnished for official use of company without
compensation, even though official performed duties for other
company from that office).
Finally, I noted that Adam Shapiro, the manager for both RL
Markets and Oliva, performed the same day-to-day manage-
ment responsibilities that he had performed at Oliva while
working at RL Markets. Shapiro was given the responsibility
to determine the wage rates and benefits for the RL Markets
employees, (except for Health Benefits, which were decided by
Roberto). Shapiro interviewed and hired all the RL Markets
employees, and is in charge of the day to day disciplinary mat-
ters and issues. Accordingly, the common labor relations as-
pect of simple employee status is satisfied.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing analysis and prece-
dent, I conclude that Oliva and RL Markets are single employ-
ers.
Having concluded, as I have, that Oliva and RL Markets are
alter egos and single employers, it follows that the Respondents
have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, by refusing to
recognize and bargain with Local 464 as the collective-
bargaining representative for its unit employees at its Whippa-
ny facility, and by refusing to apply the terms of the collective-
bargaining agreement in effect between Respondents and this
union to its Whippany unit employees. Newark Electric, supra,
362 NLRB 44 at 12; Carr Finishing Specialties, supra, 358
NLRB 1766, 1777; SRC Painting, supra, 346 NLRB at 724;
Concourse Nursing Home, 328 NLRB 692, 702–703 (1999).
Here the Respondents admit that Oliva was bound by the
terms of the existing contract with the Union. Respondents
further admit that they have neither recognized the Union as the
collective-bargaining representative for its employees em-
ployed at Whippany, nor applied the terms of this contract to
the bargaining unit employees, including wage rates and benefit
contributions.
Respondents argue that the union never organized the work-
ers at the Whippany store and did not request recognition.
However, in an alter ego single-employer situation, as here, the
Union already represents the workers of the alter ego, single-
employer company, and the existing contract applies. Accord-
ingly, the Union is not required to request recognition.
Nonetheless, the record establishes that the Union did make
requests for recognition and application of the contract to the
Whippany employees, in Hanley’s conversation with Victor
Laracca in February of 2014. Victor’s response was that the
store was going to be nonunion. Further, the refusal to bargain
charge filed by the Union is itself tantamount to a valid request
for recognition. Sterling Processing Corp., 291 NLRB 208,
212 (1988); Roberts Electric Co., 227 NLRB 1312, 1319
(1977).
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing analysis and prece-
dent I conclude that Respondents Oliva and RL Markets are
alter egos, and or a single employer, and that it violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to recognize the Union as
the representative of its Whippany bargaining unit employees,
and failed to apply the terms of its collective-bargaining agree-
ment to those employees, when it opened its Whippany store.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents are employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent RL Markets is the alter ego of Respondent
Oliva, and RL Markets and Oliva are single employers, within
the meaning of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing to recognize the Union as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of its employees at its Whip-
pany, New Jersey location, employed in the bargaining unit
represented by the Union, and by failing to apply to the unit
employees the collective-bargaining agreement between Re-
spondent Oliva and the Union, Respondents have violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents are alter egos and/or a
single employer which engaged in certain unfair labor practic-
es, I shall order them to cease and desist and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondents shall be required to recognize and, on re-
quest, bargain with the Union as the collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of all employees in the unit. Respondents shall also
be required to make whole the unit employees for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the Respond-
ents’ failure to apply the collective-bargaining agreement in
effect from March 18, 2012, to June 18 2016, as prescribed in
Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d
OLIVA SUPERMARKETS LLC 19
502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed in New Hori-
zons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and Kentucky River Medical
Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
Finally, having found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to continue in effect all the
terms and conditions of their existing collective-bargaining
agreement by failing, since May 7, 2014, to make the contrac-
tually required contributions to the Union’s fringe benefits
funds set forth in the collective-bargaining agreement, I shall
order the Respondents to make all required benefit fund contri-
butions since May 7, 2014, including any additional amounts
applicable to such funds as set forth in Merryweather Optical
Co., 240 NLRB 1213, 1216 fn. 7 (1979). In addition, the Re-
spondents shall reimburse unit employees for any expenses
resulting from the Respondent’s failure to make the required
contributions to the funds, as set forth in Kraft Plumbing &
Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661 F.2d 940
(9th Cir. 1981), such amounts are to be computed in the manner
set forth in Ogle Protection Service, supra, with interest as
prescribed in New Horizons, supra.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended4
ORDER
The Respondents, Oliva Supermarkets, LLC and RL Markets
1, LLC, Cedar Knolls and Whippany, New Jersey, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize the Union as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of all employees employed at its
Whippany, New Jersey store, employed in the meat, poultry,
fish, appetizer and delicatessen departments, both full and part
time.
(b) Failing and refusing to apply to unit employees the col-
lective-bargaining agreement covering the employees in the
above unit, in effect from March 18, 2012, to June 18 2016.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees.
(b) Make whole all bargaining unit employees and all bene-
fit funds for any loss of income contributions, or benefits, and
for any expenses incurred in connection with those benefit fund
losses by those employees, in the manner set forth in the reme-
dy section of this decision.
(c) Preserve and within 14 days of a request or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board or
its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records
4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
including an electronic copy of such records if stored in elec-
tronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this decision.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
facility in Whippany, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being signed by
the Respondents’ authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondents immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed-
ings, the Respondents have gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondents shall
duplicate and mail, at their own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by the
Respondents at any time since May 4, 2014.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 22 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondents have taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 18, 2015
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

WE WILL NOT fail to refuse to bargain in good faith with the
collective-bargaining representative of our employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit described below:

All employees employed at our Whippany, New Jersey facili-
ty, in the meat, poultry, fish, appetizer and delicatessen de-
partments, both full and part time.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and adhere to the
collective-bargaining agreement dated March 18, 2012, through
June 18, 2016, by failing to pay contractually established wage
5 If this Order is enforced by the judgment of the United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice 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.”

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 20
rates and failing to make contractually-required fund contribu-
tions to the unit described above.
WE WILL NOT in any similar manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole our employees for any losses they may
have suffered as a result of our refusal to honor the applicable
collective-bargaining agreement by transmitting, with interest,
the contributions owed on their behalf to the Union’s funds.
WE WILL continue in force and effect the collective-
bargaining agreement effective from March 18, 2012, through
June 18, 2016.
WE WILL make whole all bargaining unit employees and all
benefit funds for any loss of income, contributions and for any
expenses incurred in connection with these benefit fund losses
by those employees.

OLIVA SUPERMARKETS, LLC AND RL MARKETS I,
LLC