Ord-Man'S Park & Shop

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1989

292 N.L.R.B. 953 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP 953
Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ord-
man's Park & Shop and United Food and Com-
mercial Workers Union, Locals 1540 and 1453,
United Food and Commercial Workers Interna-
tional Union , AFL-CIO, CLC and United Food
and Commercial Workers Union , Local 1540,
United Food and Commercial Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO
Metro Resource Investments , Inc and United Food
and Commercial Workers Union , Local 1540,
United Food and Commercial Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO Cases 13-CA-26234,
13-CA-26236, and 13-CA-26235
February 10, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, CRACRAFr, AND
HIGGINS
On July 14, 1987, Administrative Law Judge
Leonard M Wagman issued the attached decision
The Respondents filed exceptions Respondents
Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation and Karat
jas Family Lemont Corporation, d/b/a Ordman's
Park & Shop, also filed a supporting brief I
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed 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 briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions as modified below, and to adopt the
recommended Order as modified
The judge found that Respondents Karatjas
Family Lemont Corporation and Karatjas Family
Lockport Corporation violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by ordering Local 1540's and Local 1453's
peaceful pickets to move away from public areas
adjacent to their grocery stores, and by threatening
them with arrest if they did not leave The judge
further found that the Karatjas Family Lemont
Corporation unlawfully caused the police to move
the pickets away from areas adjacent to its Lemont
store to remote areas at the entrance to the shop-
ping center He also found Respondent Metro Re-
source Investments, Inc, owner of the Lemont
Plaza Shopping Center, violated Section 8(a)(1) by
ordering the pickets not to engage in peaceful pick-
eting and handbilling in the public areas in front of
the Karatjas Family Lemont store and by request-
ing the police to prohibit Local 1540 from picket-
1 The General Counsel filed a motion to make the General Counsels
brief to the judge part of the record and Respondents Karatjas Family
Lockport Corporation and Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation filed a
motion to strike the final paragraph of the General Counsel s motion The
General Counsels motion to include the brief to the judge in the record
is granted The Respondents motion to strike is denied
ing or handbilling in the public areas of its Lemont
Plaza Shopping Center Finally, the judge found
that the Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation
violated Section 8(a)(1) by creating the impression
of surveillance of employees' exercising their Sec-
tion 7 rights by photographing Local 1453's and
Local 1540's pickets With the exception of the
judge's finding that Respondent Karatjas Family
Lockport Corporation violated Section 8(a)(1) by
creating the impression of surveillance by photo-
graphing pickets, we affirm the judge's findings
We do so, however, only for the reasons set forth
below
The facts are as follows Both the Lemont and
Lockport Park & Shop stores were, until April 6,
1986, owned by corporations of which Abe
Ordman was president On that date, George and
Rita Karatjas, who own and control the Karatjas
Family Lemont Corporation and the Karatjas
Family Lockport Corporation, took over owner-
ship and operation of the Ordman's Park & Shop
stores A third Ordman's Park & Shop store, locat-
ed in Mokena, was also purchased by the Karatjas
family, but activities at that store are not at issue in
this proceeding
The employees of all three Ordman's Park &
Shop stores were terminated by Ordman effective
April 6, 1986 2 The Karatjas Family Lockport Cor-
poration hired a majority of the former employees
of Ordman at the Lockport store, but a majority of
the employees of the Lemont and Mokena stores
were hired from sources other than the Ordman's
Park & Shop stores Local 1540, United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, had represented the
retail clerks at the Lemont store for many years,
and Local 1453 of that union had represented the
clerks at the Mokena store, but the retail employ-
ees at the Lockport store had been unrepresented
In March 1986, prior to the effective date of the
sale, the Karatjas met with Locals 1540 and 1453
and refused to recognize the Unions as collective-
bargaining representatives at any of the three
stores
I LEMONT PARK & SHOP STORE
On April 7, the first day of operation under the
new ownership, Local 1540 began picketing and
handbilling at the Lemont store A description of
the Lemont Park & Shop store, located in the
Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, is fully set forth in
the judge's decision Briefly, the Lemont Plaza
Shopping Center is a strip shopping center approxi
mately 950 feet long fronting on State Street,
where it has two entrances about 100 yards apart
2 Unless otherwise indicated all dates are 1986
292 NLRB No 92
954 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Between these entrances is a grassy area, but no
sidewalk. State Street is approximately 280 feet
from the entrance to Ordman's Park & Shop, and
the shopping center has an extensive parking area
available to the Ordman's Park & Shop customers
and to customers of Walgreen's and other shopping
center.stores. The Lemont Ordman's Park & Shop
store shares a sidewalk with a row of shopping
center stores.
On April 7, Union Representative George
Holtshlag and five or six former Ordman's employ-
ees stationed themselves in front of the store be-
tween the two front doors. Two pickets stood 5 or
6 feet in front of each door, and the remainder pa-
trolled the 40 yards separating the two doors. The
picket signs stated:
Please do not patronize Ordman's Park-N-
Shop. Does not have a contract with or
employ members of UFCW Local 1540, AFL-
CIO, CLC.
Handbills distributed by the pickets asked potential
customers not to patronize Ordman's Park & Shop
and to support the Union's boycott. The handbills
further stated that the employees lost their jobs and
benefits when the new owner took over, and that
the pickets wanted their jobs back. One handbill
stated that the pickets were not considered for
their former jobs because they belong to the
Union.3 Examples of the handbills are included
verbatim in the judge's decision.
The Lemont Ordman's Park & Shop store man-
ager came out and warned the pickets that he
would call the police and have them arrested for
trespassing if they did not move to the edge of the
shopping center. The police were called, and the
police chief advised Holtshlag that he had a letter
from Metro, the shopping center owner, which he
regarded as a signed complaint, and said that he
would arrest the pickets if they did not leave. The
police chief told the pickets to limit their picketing
to the State Street driveway entrances that are di-
rectly in front of the store. The pickets complied,
and moved to the grassy area between the two en-
trances.
The police chief subsequently imposed additional
safety restrictions on the pickets-they were not
permitted to walk across the driveways, or to offer
handbills at the edge of the grassy strip or along
driveway entrances. Instead, they had to hold their
picket signs and stand in the grassy area offering
9 The Unions filed unfair labor practice charges alleging that the Re-
spondents' refusal to hire former Ordman employees violated the Act
when the picketing began, but the Regional Director dismissed the
charges on evidentiary grounds on May 21. The General Counsel on
September 5 denied the Unions' appeal of the dismissals.
handbills only to drivers who came for one after
parking their cars. The police chief also prohibited
Local 1540 from putting handbills on automobiles
parked in the shopping center.
Metro permits organizations to use its premises
for charitable and civic purposes, and also allows
the Lemont Corporation to grant or deny permis-
sion to use the premises on which the Ordman's
Park & Shop is situated. During the time the Union
was picketing, school cheerleaders conducted try-
outs on the sidewalk near the north entrance to the
store, attracting an audience in the parking lot. The
cheerleaders also conducted a bake sale on the
sidewalk on another occasion. A table was set up
approximately in the middle between the store's
two doors, and cheerleaders stood at each door
selling baked goods. The Lions Club sold candy at
the store entrances during that time period as well.
There is no evidence of restrictions on access to
the sidewalk other than in such extraordinary cir-
cumstances as drunk or disorderly conduct or har-
assing of customers. There is also testimony that
Rita Karatjas called the police on one occasion in
connection with loitering, but the record contains
no details of the circumstances or timing of this in-
cident.
Metro permitted the Lemont Jaycees, Lemont
Chamber of Commerce, and other groups to use
retail space, the parking lot, and other portions of
the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center for various ac-
tivities during 1986. The Lemont Hornets Youth
Football Association conducted a car wash be-
tween 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. on 4 days between April
and August, and a Lutheran Church was given
permission to use the parking lot for a car wash on
three dates during that same time period. The
record contains letters granting individuals the
same privilege on various dates in 1986. At the
time of the hearing in late January 1987, the Union
continued to picket and handbill in the grassy area
between the two parking lot entrances at the
Lemont Plaza Shopping Center.
II. LOCKPORT PARK & SHOP STORE
Locals 1540 and 1453 began picketing and hand-
billing at the Lockport Ordman's Park & Shop
store in July 1986. The Lockport store is located in
the Summit Plaza Shopping Center, a strip shop-
ping center fronting on Summit Drive. The shop-
ping center is approximately 900-feet long, with a
K-Mart at one end and the Ordman's Park & Shop
store at the other. There are three entrances to the
parking lot off Summit Drive, two of which are in
front of and approximately 200 feet from the en-
trance to the Park & Shop store. A common side-
walk extends from Ordman's Park & Shop to the
ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP
K-Mart, and a parking area is shared by these and
four other stores
On July 7 some former employees of the Lemont
Ordman's Park & Shop store and paid pickets
began picketing and handbilling on the sidewalk
immediately in front of the Lockport store Pickets
walked between the store's two front doors, which
are 20 to 25 yards apart, and others handbilled near
the doors The handbills and picket signs were
similar to those used at Lemont
Rita and George Karatjas ordered the pickets to
move to an area at the perimeter of the shopping
center, and the store manager threatened the pick-
ets with arrest if they did not move Both of the
Karatjas and the store manager took photographs
of the pickets on the sidewalk in front of the store
on several occasions during July
The shopping center lessor also participated in
having the pickets removed from the entrances to
the Lockport Park & Shop The lessor requested
the police to remove the pickets, and the Lockport
police finally ordered the pickets to leave the side-
walk The pickets then moved to the perimeter of
the property near the drive entrances and stood on
the sides of the entrances A complaint alleging
that the lessor also violated Section 8(a)(1) issued,
but a settlement agreement with the lessor was ap-
proved prior to the hearing in this proceeding
Under the terms of that agreement, the pickets
were allowed to return to the sidewalk fronting the
Lockport Ordman's Park & Shop store and have
been picketing and handbilling there since Decem-
ber 1986
The Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation had
the same policy as the Karatjas Family Lemont
Corporation for allowing civic organizations to
engage in activities outside its Lockport Store Ac-
cording to Rita Karatjas, the organization generally
would call the store manager and ask if they could
be there, and the manager would grant permission,
giving preference to those who had accounts with
the store, if someone else had not already sched-
uled that time
The parties stipulated that Locals 1540 and 1453
have not attempted to organize either Corpora-
tion's employees, or sought recognition None of
the pickets were employees of any of the Respond
ents
The judge applied the analysis set forth by the
Board in Fairmont Hotel, 282 NLRB 139 (1986),
and concluded that the pickets here asserted an im-
portant Section 7 interest that substantially out-
weighed the Respondents' relatively weak property
interests He therefore found that the Respondents
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by denying the
Unions the use of the sidewalks in front of both the
955
Lemont Corporation's Park & Shop and the Lock
port Corporation's Park & Shop stores, as well as
public areas of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center
We agree with the judge that the Respondents vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) through their denial of access
to the Unions, but reach that conclusion because of
their disparate treatment of protected union activi-
ty rather than on the basis of an accommodation of
competing interests
In Jean Country, 291 NLRB 11 (1988), we re
cently reexamined and clarified our analytical ap-
proach in access cases In so doing, however, we
noted that we continue to adhere to the distinct an-
alytical view that a denial of access for Section 7
activity may constitute unlawful disparate treat-
ment when a property owner permits similar activi-
ty in similar, relevant circumstances Jean Country,
supra at fn 3 This approach is based on the Su
preme Court's opinion in NLRB v Babcock &
Wilcox Co, 351 U S 105, 112 (1956),4 as reiterated
by that Court in Sears, Roebuck & Co v San Diego
County District Council of Carpenters, 436 U S 180,
205 (1978), as follows
To gain access, the union has the burden of
showing that no other reasonable means of
communicating its organizational message to
the employees exists or that the employer's
access rules discriminate against union solicita-
tion [fn omitted]
See also Providence Hospital, 285 NLRB 320, 322,
(1987), in which the Board noted that the Fairmont
decision addressed only the "reasonable alternative
means" prong of this disjunctive test
Here, the Respondents' access policies clearly
discriminated against union activity, for Respond-
ents Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation and
Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation admittedly
allowed other organizations to use the very side
walks and store entrances for solicitation that the
Unions were prohibited from using At the Lemont
Plaza Shopping Center, the record showed exten
sive use of the facilities by charitable, civic, and
other organizations, and Rita Karatjas testified that
the Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation and the
Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation permit
civic organizations to engage in activities outside
their stores at both Lemont and Lockport In addi
tion, Respondent Metro permitted use of the public
4 The Court there set forth the following test
It is our judgment that an employer may validly post his prop
erty against nonemployee distribution of union literature if reasona
ble efforts by the union through other available channels of commit
mcation will enable it to reach the employees with its message and if
the employers notice or order does not discriminate against the
union by allowing other distribution
956 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
areas of its Lemont Plaza Shopping Center to civic
organizations, churches, and apparently even indi-
viduals, for a broad range of activities, while deny
ing the Union the use of the same premises for
handbilling and picketing purposes Under these
circumstances, we find that the Respondents' con-
duct constituted unlawful disparate treatment of
protected union activity in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act 5 Accordingly, we shall modify
the judge's recommended Order to reflect the dis-
criminatory nature of these violations
Finally, we disagree with the judge's conclusion
that the Lockport Corporation engaged in surveil
lance violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when
its agents on three occasions photographed nonem-
ployee pickets on the sidewalk in front of the
Lockport store It is undisputed that during the
course of the picketing Respondents took photo
graphs of nonemployee, paid pickets in order to
preserve evidence of alleged trespass The Board
has held that where photographs are taken for the
purpose of gathering evidence, and there is no
showing of coercion of the employees, such photo
graphing is not unlawful Roadway Express, 271
NLRB 1238 (1984) The Board has also held that
taking pictures of union representatives' handbilling
of a company's employees on its own property, in
which the company called the police because of
the trespass on its property and in which the union
engaged in the activity on more than one occasion,
did not constitute unlawful surveillance Berton
Kirshner Inc, 209 NLRB 1081 (1974), enfd 523
F 2d 1046 (9th Cir 1975) In this instance, in which
there was no photographing of any of the Re-
spondents' employees, but only of nonemployee,
paid pickets whose message was aimed at consum-
ers and not at the Respondents employees, and in
which the photographs were taken in order to
secure evidence of alleged trespassory activities6
and without any evidence of coercion of the Re
spondents' employees, we cannot conclude that the
Respondent Lockport Corporation engaged in un-
lawful surveillance Accordingly, we shall dismiss
this portion of the complaint
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that
5 We therefore find it unnecessary to engage in an accommodation
analysis of the Sec 7 and property rights
6In Waco Inc 273 NLRB 746 (1984) relied on by the judge in find
mg the photographing unlawful the picketing at issue occurred at or
near the entrance to the Respondents premises there was no allegation
that the pickets were unlawfully on the respondents property as there
was here and the photographing there was not properly justified
A The Respondent , Metro Resource Invest-
ments , Inc, Hinsdale , Illinois, its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall take the action set
forth in the Order as modified
1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a)
"(a) Discnminatonly ordering United Food and
Commercial Workers Union , Local 1540 or any
other labor organization not to engage in peaceful
picketing and handbilling in the public areas adja
cent to Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation's
Ordman 's Park & Shop store in the Lemont Shop
ping Plaza , Lemont , Illinois , in protest of Respond
ent Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation 's failure
to hire former employees of Ordman 's Park &
Shop stores "
2 Substitute the attached Appendix B for that of
the administrative law judge
B The Respondent , Karatjas Family Lemont
Corporation d/b/a Ordman 's Park & Shop,
Lemont , Illinois , its officers, agents , successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order
as modified
1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a)
"(a) Discrimmatonly threatening to cause the
arrest , causing the arrest , or attempting to cause
the arrest of any employee , or of any representa
tive of United Food and Commercial Workers'
International Union, Local 1540 , AFL-CIO, CLC,
while they are peacefully picketing and handbilling
on public areas adjacent to the Karatjas Family
Lemont Corporation 's Park and Shop store at the
Lemont Plaza Shopping Center , Lemont, Illinois,
in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Corpora-
tion 's failure to hire former Ordman 's Park & Shop
employees "
2 Substitute the attached Appendix C for that of
the administrative law judge
C The Respondent , Karatjas Family Lockport
Corporation d/b/a Ordman 's Park & Shop, Lock-
port, Illinois, its officers , agents, successors, and as
signs , shall take the action set forth in the Order as
modified
1 Delete paragraph 1(a) and reletter the subse-
quent paragraphs
2 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b)
"(a) Discriminatorily ordering employees, or any
representative of Local 1540, Local 1453, or of any
other labor organization , who are peacefully pick
eting or handbilling in protest of the Karatjas
Family Lockport Corporation 's failure to hire
former employees of Ordman 's Park & Shop stores
at Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation 's Park &
Shop , to move from the public area adjacent to the
Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation 's Park &
Shop store to the perimeter of the Summit Plaza
Shopping Center "
ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP
3 Substitute the attached Appendix D for that of
the administrative law judge
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities
WE WILL NOT discnminatonly order United
Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1540,
United Food and Commercial Workers Internation-
al Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, or any other labor or-
ganization, not to engage in peaceful picketing and
handbilling in the public areas adjacent to Karatjas
Family Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ordman's Park
& Shop store in the Lemont Plaza Shopping
Center, Lemont, Illinois, in protest of Karatjas
Family Lemont Corporation's failure to hire
former employees of Ordman's Park & Shop stores
WE WILL NOT advise or request the Lemont, Illi-
nois Police Department to prohibit any employees
or any representative of United Food and Com-
mercial Workers Union, Local 1540, or of any
other labor organization, from picketing or hand-
billing peacefully in the public area of the Lemont
Plaza Shopping Center, in protest of Karatjas
Family Lemont Corporation's failure to hire
former employees of Ordman's Park & Shop stores
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act
METRO RESOURCE INVESTMENTS INC
APPENDIX C
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
957
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities
WE WILL NOT discrimmatonly threaten to cause
the arrest, cause the arrest, or attempt to cause the
arrest, of any employee, or of any representative of
United Food and Commercial Workers Union,
Local 1540, United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, while they
are peacefully picketing and handbilling on public
areas adjacent to Karatjas Family Lemont Corpo-
ration d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop store, at the
Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, Lemont, Illinois,
in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Corpora
tion's failure to hire former Ordman's Park & Shop
employees
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the
Lemont, Illinois Police Department to remove em-
ployees, or representatives of Local 1540 or of any
other labor organization from public areas adjacent
to Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation d/b/a
Ordman's Park & Shop store, to the perimeter of
the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, while they are
peacefully picketing and handbilling in protest of
Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation's failure to
hire former Ordman's Park & Shop employees
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act
KARATJAS FAMILY LEMONT CORPO-
RATION D/B/A ORDMAN'S PARK &
SHOP
958 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX D
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily order employees,
or any representative of United Food and Com-
mercial Workers Union Locals 1540 and 1453,
United Food and Commercial Workers Internation-
al Union AFL-CIO, CLC, or of any other labor
organization, who are peacefully picketing or hand-
billing in protest of Karatjas Family Lockport Cor-
poration's failure to hire former employees of Ord-
man's Park & Shop stores at Karatjas Family
Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ordman's Park &
Shop, to move from the public area adjacent to
Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ord-
man's Park & Shop store to the perimeter of the
Summit Plaza Shopping Center or threaten such
pickets with arrest for trespassing if they do not do
SO.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
KARATJAS FAMILY LOCKPORT COR-
PORATION D/B/A ORDMAN'S PARK &
SHOP
Linda McCormick and Douchon Pouritch, Esqs., for the
General Counsel.
Donald F. Peters Jr., Esq., of Chicago , Illinois , for Re-
spondent Metro Resource Investments, Inc.
Steven D. Erf, Esq. (McDermott, Will & Emery), of Chica-
go, Illinois, for Respondents Karatjas Family Lockport
Corporation and Karatjas Family Lemont Corpora-
tion.
Jairus Gilden, Esq. (Karmel and Rosenfeld), of Chicago,
Illinois, for the Charging Parties.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge.
On a charge filed on 29 August 19861 by the Union,
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Locals
1540 and 1453, United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (individually
Local 1540 and Local 1453), respectively, in Case 13-
CA-26234, a first amended charge filed by Locals 1540
and 1453 on 8 September, a charge in Case 13-CA-
26235, filed on 29 August by Local 1540, a charge in
Case 13-CA-26236, filed by Local 1540 on 29 August,
and a first amended charge in Case 13-CA-25236, filed
by Local 1540 on 8 September, the Regional Director
for Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board
(the Board), issued an amended consolidated complaint
and notice of hearing on 26 November, alleging that the
Respondents, Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation
d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop, Karatjas Family Lemont
Corporation d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop, and Metro
Resource Investments, Inc. (the Lockport Corporation);
the Lemont Corporation and Metro had violated Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by
interfering with Local 1540's and Local 1453's informa-
tional picketing and handbilling at the Lockport Corpo-
ration's Ordman's Park & Shop store at Lockport, Illi-
nois , and at the Lemont Corporation's Ordman's Park &
Shop at Lemont, Illinois. The Lockport Corporation, the
Lemont Corporation, and Metro, by their timely an-
swers, denied commission of the alleged unfair labor
practices.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses' demeanor at the hearing, and after due consid-
eration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Locals
1540 and 1453, and by the Lockport and the Lemont
corporations, 2 I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The Lockport. Corporation operates a retail grocery
store at Lockport, Illinois. The Lemont Corporation op-
erates a retail grocery store at Lemont, Illinois. During
the past calendar or fiscal year, a representative period,
the Lockport Corporation and the Lemont Corporation,
respectively, derived gross revenues exceeding $500,000
from their retail sales . During the same period, the Lock-
port Corporation and the Lemont Corporation, respec-
tively, purchased and received at their respective stores
products, goods, and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the State of Illinois.
The Lockport Corporation and the Lemont Corporation
admit, and I find, from the foregoing data, that each of
them has been, at all times material , an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
' Unless otherwise stated, all dates referred to in this decision occurred
in 1986.
2 The Lockport Corporation's and the Lemont Corporation's motion to
correct the record is granted . "Appendix A" of this decision , which con-
tains the corrections recited in the motion, is omitted from publication.
ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP
At all times material, Metro, a corporation with an of
facial office and place of business at Hinsdale, Illinois, has
engaged in the leasing and management of commercial
real estate Metro admits, and I find, that during the past
calendar or fiscal year, a representative period, Metro re
ceived gross receipts exceeding $100 000 from its leasing
and management operations, of which amount $25 000
was derived from Walgreen s, an employer directly en
gaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the
Act Metro admits, and I find from the foregoing data
that it is, and has been at all times material, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act
Local 1453 and Local 1540, respectively, are, and have
been at all times material, labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Facts3
1 The change of owners at Ordman s Lemont,
Lockport, and Mokena stores
Prior to 6 April, three corporations of which Abe
Ordman was president, owned and operated three Ord
man s Park & Shop retail grocery stores situated, respec
tively, in shopping centers at Lockport, Lemont, and
Mokena, Illinois By the date, Local 1540 had represent
ed the retail clerks at Ordman's Lemont store for pur
poses of collective bargaining for 25 to 30 years As of 4
April, Local 1453 had represented the retail clerks at
Ordman s Mokena Park & Shop store for approximately
the same amount of time
In a letter to the three stores employees dated 5
March Ordman announced the sale of the three Park &
Shop stores, effective on 6 April, and the termination of
all employees of the three stores, also effective 6 April
On 20 March, George and Rita Karatjas, who owned
and controlled the Lockport Corporation and the
Lemont Corporation, and the Karatjas Family Mokena
Corporation d/b/a Ordman s Park & Shop store, met
with representatives of Locals 1540 and 1453 George
Karatjas refused to recognize them as collective bargain
ing representative for any of the three stores The Locals
also inquired about the prospects of the Mokena store
employees for rehiring on 6 April George replied that a
committee would make hiring decisions Two of the
Local s officials warned George that they would see him
on 6 April
On 4 April Ordman accomplished the contemplated
sale of the three Park & Shop stores The new owners
took possession of the three stores on 6 April and began
operating on 7 April
Neither Local 1543 nor Local 1540 has attempted to
organize either the Lemont Corporations or the Lock
port Corporation's employees Neither Local 1453 nor
Local 1540 has sought recognition from these corpora
tions as collective bargaining representative of any of
their employees Of the three stores, only the Lockport
Corporation's Park & Shop began operations on 7 April
3 The essential facts in these cases are undisputed
959
with most of its employee complement drawn from its
predecessors employees Mokena and the Lemont Cor
poration drew the bulk of their employees from other
sources The Karatjas Family Mokena Corporation hired
12 out of approximately 40 former Ordman employees
Respondent Lemont Corporation hired 7 of the 35 to 45
former Ordman employees, numbering 35 to 45
2 The picketing and handbilling at Lemont
The Lemont Corporation operates its Park & Shop
store, under a lease, at the Lemont Plaza Shopping
Center which Metro owns and operates I find from the
parties' stipulation that the following is an accurate de
scription of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center
Lemont Plaza Shopping Center is a strip shopping
center approximately 950 feet long The shopping
plaza fronts on State Street, a two lane road with a
shoulder on each side which is the main street of
Lemont It is the principal accessway to Interstate
55 and Route 171, major thoroughfares to and from
Lemont The speed limit is 25 miles per hour going
south, and 30 miles per hour going north, and there
is no stoplight at the shopping center The other
side of State Street contains a cemetery At State
Street, there are two entrances to the parking lot
about 100 yards apart Between these entrances,
there is a grassy area but no sidewaik There are
two other entrances to the parking lot On the
north there is Wiemar Street and on the south Ro
berta Street These are both local roads with mini
mal traffic State Street is approximately 280 feet
from the entrance to Ordman s
The parties also stipulated, and I find, that the town of
Lemont's population as of 1983 was about 5600 with
2037 housing units Lemont Plaza Shopping Center has
an extensive parking area available to the Lemont Cor
poration's Park & Shop customers and to the customers
of Walgreen s and the other shopping center stores
There was no evidence of restrctions on parking or
access to the sidewalk in front of the Lemont Corpora
tion s Park & Shop which it shares in common with a
row of shopping center stores In exceptional circum
stances involving drunk or disorderly individuals or per
sons harassing customers the Lemont Corporation has
sought police assistance in removing the offenders from
the sidewalk near its store
About 31 March Local 1540 notified the tenants of
Lemont Plaza of its intent to engage in informational
picketing at that location Local 1540 also stated that it
would direct its picketing at Park & Shop for refusing to
hire union members
In quick response to Local 1540 s announcement,
Metro, on or about 2 April, ordered Local 1540 to re
frain from informational picketing and handbillmg in
public areas in front of the Lemont Corporations Park &
Shop at the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center The perti
nent text of Metro's letter was as follows
Please be advised that it is the owner s policy not
to allow demonstrations or solicitations of any type
960 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which would hinder our tenants daily business or
obstruct pedestrian traffic either entering or leaving
the LEMONT PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
property
Please confine your picketing to the grass park
way area at the easternmost portion of the Plaza
parking lot, fronting State Street We will not allow
picketing activity outside that area and appreciate
your cooperation Thank you
Also, on or about 2 April, Metro asked the Chief of the
Lemont Police Department, in conversation, and by
letter, to prevent Local 1540 from picketing or handbill
ing on the Lemont Shopping Plaza property After refer
ring to its letter to Local 1540, Metro s request to the
police chief was as follows
Pursuant to our conversation of 4-2-86 it is the
owner s desire not to allow solicitation or demon
stration on the LEMONT PLAZA SHOPPING
CENTER property As we have discussed, it may
be best to allow this type of activity on the grass
area in between the Plaza parking lot and State
Street
But in no way allow pedestrian traffic to be ob
structed either entering or leaving the Plaza
UNFAIR!
PLEASE DO NOT PATRONIZE
THE
ORDMAN S PARK AND SHOP STORES
We all lost our wages, insurance, retirement, va
cation and seniority without receiving the common
courtesy of being considered for our former jobs
On April 6, 1986 the new owners terminated us and
hired new non union employees without consider
ing our many past years of loyal service
We were not considered for our former jobs
solely because we belong to the Union
We ask that our friends and community do not
shop at ORDMAN S PARK AND SHOP
STORES
WE WANT OUR JOBS BACKI
Thanks for your support,
FORMER EMPLOYEES OF
ORDMAN S PARK AND SHOP STORES
In contrast to its treatment of Local 1540, Metro, in
1986, repeatedly permitted organizations to use its prem
ises for charitable and civic purposes In 1986 on 4 days,
between 8 a in and 2 p in each day Metro permitted the
Lemont Hornets Youth Football Association to wash
cars on the Lemont Plaza s parking lot On three other
dates in 1986, Metro accorded the same privilege to a
Lutheran Church Metro also permitted the Lemont Jay
cees, and the Lemont Chamber of Commerce and other
groups to use retail space the parking lot and other por
tions of the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center property for
various other activities during 1986
On 7 April Local 1540 began informational picketing
and handbilling at the Lemont Corporations Stop &
Shop store at the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center 4
Local 1540 s representative, George Holtshlag and five
or six former Ordman employees stationed themselves in
front of the store, on the sidewalk between its two front
doors Two pickets stood 5 or 6 feet in front of each of
the two front doors Holtshlag and the remaining two or
three packets walked back and forth over the 40 yards
separating the two doors with picket signs The follow
ing are examples of the handbills which Local 1540 and
the supporters distributed at the Lemont Corporation s
Park & Shop store
° Local 1453 began handbilling and picketing at Karatlas Family
Mokena Corporation s Ordman s Park & Shop store on 7 April Howev
er there are no allegations in the complaint regarding the Mokena store
Accordingly I have focused my attention on the Lemont and Lockport
stores
DEAR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS
PLEASEI
SUPPORT
THE BOYCOTT
WE LOST
OUR JOBS-OUR BENEFITS
WHEN THE NEW OWNER TOOK OVER
YOU CAN HELP BY NOT SHOPPING
AT ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT
FORMER
ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP EMPLOYEES
ORDMAN S DOES NOT EMPLOY MEMBERS
OF
LOCAL 540 UFCW
OR HAVE A CONTRACT WITH LOCAL 1540
UFCW AFL-CIO
The signs which the Lemont pickets carried read
Please do not patronize Ordman 's Park N Shop
Does not have a contract with or employ members
of UFCW Local 1540, AFL-CIO CLC
Approximately 5 minutes after the picketing and hand
billing had begun the Lemont Corporation' s store man
alter Jack Jaglowski came out of the store and warned
the pickets Jaglowski declared that he would call the
police and have the pickets arrested for trespassing
unless they removed their picketing and handbilling to
the edge of the shopping center Holtshlag answered that
he and the other pickets would not leave because Jag
lowski was not the owner of the property
ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP 961
I find also that on 7 April the Lemont Corporation,
acting through Jerry Siwmski, asked the local police to
remove Local 1540 s pickets from its Lemont Plaza store
and limit them to the edge of the shopping center
Approximately 10 minutes after the Jaglowski Holtsh
lag confrontation, the local police chief approached
Holtshlag and the other pickets The Lemont police
chief stated that he had a letter from Metro which he in
terpreted as a signed complaint, and that he would arrest
them for trespassing if they did not leave The chief ad
vised the pickets to limit their picketing to the driveway
entrances at State Street, which are directly in front of
the Lemont Corporations Park & Shop store
The pickets immediately complied Holtshlag and the
rest of the pickets confined their handbilling and picket
ing to the two State Street driveway entrances and the
grassy area between the two entrances for remainder of
7 April, and the following day or two
One or two days after removing the pickets to the
State Street driveway entrances and the grassy area be
tween them, the police chief imposed new strictures He
prohibited the pickets from walking across the drive
ways Instead, the pickets could carry picket signs on the
grassy area and stand on either side of the driveway of
fenng handbills to passing automobiles The pickets coin
plied, with the result that a driver interested in obtaining
handbills would stop alongside the grassy area and block
traffic, as he or she reached through the passengers side
of his or her automobile Approximately 2 days after
these restrictions went into effect, the Lemont police
chief complained to Holtshlag that Local 1540 s handbill
ing was causing a traffic hazard
The chief next directed Holtshlag to stop offering
handbills at the edge of the grassy strips or along drive
way entrances The chief allowed the pickets to hold up
picket signs and to stand in the grassy area offering
handbills only to drivers and passengers who came to
them after parking their cars During the ensuing 6
weeks, Holtshlag who was at the Lemont picketing site 6
days per week, during that period, observed that only
one or two drivers per day would park and walk to the
grassy area beyond the parking lot to obtain a leaflet
After mid June, Local 1540 s rate of handbill distribution
on the grassy area diminished to about one per week At
one of his meetings with Holtshlag the Lemont police
chief prohibited Local 1540 from putting handbills on
automobiles parked in the Lemont Plaza Shopping
Center At the time of the hearing in these cases, Local
1540 was picketing and handbilling under these same
conditions
Metro allows the Lemont Corporation to grant or
deny permission to the public to use the premises on
which the Lemont Corporations Ordman s Park & Shop
store is situated During a weekend at the end of August,
or at the beginning of September, a group of school
cheerleaders conducted tryouts on the sidewalk, a short
distance from the entrance to the Lemont Corporation's
store Their activity attracted an audience in the parking
lot The following weekend, this same group conducted
a bake sale, on the same sidewalk, in front of the Lemont
Corporations store entrance In early September the
Lions Club sold candy at the same store entrance
3 The picketing and handbillmg at Lockport
The Lockport Corporation leases its Lockport Park &
Shop store at Summit Plaza, a shopping center owned
and operated by National Property Analysts, Inc I find
from the parties stipulation that the following is an accu
rate description of the Summit Plaza Shopping Center
Summit Plaza Shopping Center is a strip shopping
center fronting on Summit Drive, a two lane street
perpendicular to Illinois Route 7, a heavily travelled
road The shopping center is approximately 900 feet
long A K Mart is at the north end of the shopping
center and Ordman s is at the south end There are
three entrances to the parking lot off of Summit
Drive, two of which are in front of Ordman s and
are approximately 200 feet from the entrance to
Ordman s There is no sidewalk between the three
entrances to the parking lot off of Summit Drive
There are no traffic signals at the shopping center
Lockport is a town of about 9170 inhabitants and has
3439 housing units The speed limit on Summit Drive is
approximately 25 miles per hour and the speed limit on
Illinois Route 7 is 35 miles per hour There is a church
on the other side of Summit Drive
An airphoto shows a fourth entrance at the shopping
center s north end, near the K Mart store Another,
closer airphoto reveals a common sidewalk, extending
from Ordman's Park & Shop to the K Mart store and a
large parking area shared by Park & Shop, K Mart, and
four other stores There was no showing of any restnc
tions of public access to the shopping center and its
parking lot Occasionally, the Lockport Corporation has
requested police assistance in removing from the side
walk adjacent to its store persons who were drunk, dis
orderly, or harassing customers
On 7 July, Locals 1540 and 1453 began picketing and
handbilling at the Lockport Corporations Park & Shop
store, at the Summit Plaza Shopping Center Some
former employees of Ordman's Lemont Park & Shop and
paid pickets participated in the handbilling and picketing
on the sidewalk immediately in front of the Lockport
Corporations Park & Shop Some of the pickets walked
between the store s two entrance doors which were 20
or 25 yards apart Others handbilled near the doors The
handbills and picket signs that the pickets displayed at
Lockport were similar in content to those which the
pickets used at Lemont
The Lockport Corporation with help from the lessor,
repeatedly attempted to dislodge the pickets On 7 July,
Karatjas photographed former Ordman employee Dan
Sopher who was picketing at the time and three other
pickets, one of whom was also a former Ordman em
ployee,5 as they stood in the public area, in front of the
Lockport Park & Shop, between the two doors About 8
July, National Property Analyst Inc by letter asked
the Lockport chief of police to remove the pickets from
the entrances to the Lockport Corporations Park &
5 I find from the parties stipulations that none of the pickets were em
ployees of the Respondents in these cases
962 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shop In the same letter, National Property Analysts
stated that it would permit the pickets to stand at the
perimeter of the property near the drive entrances as
long as they are there in an orderly fashion On 11 July,
Rita and George Karatjas ordered Local 1540's and
1453 s pickets, including Dan Sopher and one other
former Ordman employee, to cease picketing and hand
billing in the public area in front of the Lemont Corpora
tion's Park & Shop and to move to an area at the perim
eter of the Summit Plaza Shopping Center
On 14 July, the Lockport Corporation intensified its
effort to dislodge the pickets Jerry Siwinski, the manag
er of Lockport Corporations Summit Plaza Park &
Shop, photographed Dan Sopher and others as they
picketed and handbilled on the public sidewalk fronting
the Park & Shop Siwmski also threatened the same pick
ets with arrest if they did not remove themselves from
the front of the store On the same day, George Karatjas,
acting on behalf of the Lockport Corporation, photo
graphed Dan Sopher and others as they picketed the
Summit Plaza Park & Shop
Finally, Lockport police officers arrived and ordered
the pickets to leave the sidewalk in front of the Park &
Shop store Local 1540's and Local 1453 s pickets quick
ly complied with the police order and began handbilling
and picketing at the two Summit Drive entrances, oppo
site the Park & Shop store However, there was no
showing that the Lockport Corporation caused the
police to intervene
The three or four pickets stationed at the new location
experienced a sharp reduction in their ability to handbill
effectively Instead of having easy access to pedestrians,
the pickets found themselves in a difficult situation,
standing on the sides of the entrances, away from the
driver s side, as cars turned to enter the shopping center
The pickets handbilled only 3 or 4 percent of the cars
entering the shopping center
On 9 October, the Regional Director for the Board s
Region 13 issued a consolidated complaint in these cases
and Case 13-CA-26237 which included an allegation
that National Property Analysts, Inc violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by its letter to the Lockport police On
26 November, the Regional Director severed Case 13-
CA-26237 from the consolidated complaint, after he had
approved a settlement agreement with National Property
Analysts Inc
Since December, National Property Analysts, Inc in
compliance with the settlement agreement has relaxed
its strictures against Local 1540's and Local 1453 s pick
eting and handbilling at the Lockport Corporation's Park
& Shop Since December, Local 1540 and Local 1453
have been handbilling and picketing on the sidewalk
fronting that store at the Summit Plaza Shopping Center
B Analysis and Conclusions
The basic issue in these cases is whether as urged by
the General Counsel Local 1540 and Local 1453 the
pickets at the Lemont and Lockport Park & Shop stores
were entitled to the protection of Section 7 of the Act
The Respondents contend first that, as Local 1540 s and
Local 1453 s sole objective was the destruction of the
Lemont Corporations and the Lockport Corporation s
respective businesses, the picketing and handbilling, in
support of that objective was outside the protection of
Section 7 of the Act The Respondents also argue that
even if this picketing and handbilling was otherwise enti
tled to some protection from Section 7 of the Act, picket
line misconduct and the existence of alternative means of
communication removed that protection For the follow
ing reasons, I have rejected the Respondent's position
In resolving this dispute I have sought guidance from
the Board's decision in United Supermarkets, 283 NLRB
814 (1987) In that case, the Board found that United Su
permarkets, Inc had violated Section 8(a)(1) by threaten
ing to cause the arrest, and causing the arrest of four
pickets who were protected by Section 7 of the Act
while they were picketing in front of United's supermar
ket, in a shopping center, and urging shoppers to shop
elsewhere until pending unfair labor practice complaint
allegations against the employer had been resolved The
pickets also announced that the employers wages and
benefits were inferior to those provided by union mar
kets Included in the complaint were allegations that the
employer had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by discharging two of the pickets, Pricella Sain and
Mary Jane Price 8 The picket signs carried by the four
pickets declared United Supermarkets Unfair To Retail
Clerks Union Local 368 Dallas, Texas
Applying the analysis developed in Fairmont Hotel,
282 NLRB 139 (1986), the Board concluded that United
Supermarkets had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act In
United Supermarkets supra at 814-815, the Board recog
nized that the Board s task is first to weigh the relative
strength of each party s claim "' The Board reviewed, in
detail, the weighing process as previously stated in Fair-
mont Hotel, supra at 142 (fn omitted), as follows
If the property owner s claim is a strong one, while
the Section 7 right at issue is clearly a less compel
ling one the property right will prevail If the
property claim is a tenuous one, and the Section 7
right is clearly more compelling, then the Section 7
right will prevail Only in those cases where the
rspective claims are relatively equal in strength will
effective alternative means of communication
become determinative
The Board s explanation of the Fairmont Hotel analysis
continued in United Supermarkets, supra at 815 as fol
lows
Factors that may affect the relative strength or
weakness of an asserted property right include the
following the use to which the property in question
is put, any restrictions placed on public access to
the property or to the facility located on the prop
erty and the size and location of the private facile
ty By way of example the Board noted that a
single store surrounded by its own parking lot pro
vided exclusively for the convenience of customers
6 The Board later resolved these allegations in United Supermarkets
supra Inter aim the Board concluded that Sam s discharge had violated
Sec 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and that Price s had not violated the Act
ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP
will have a significantly more compelling property
right claim than `the owner of a large shopping
mall who allows the general public to utilize his
property without substantial limitation [at 1421
Concerning the Section 7 right, factors that may
affect the relative strength or weakness of such a
right include the following the nature of the right
asserted, the purpose for which it is being asserted,
the employer that is the target of the activity, the
situs of the activity the relationship of the situs to
the target, the intended audience of the activity,
and, possibly, the manner in which the right is
being asserted [Ibid ] By way of example, the
Board noted that organizational rights and the
right to engage in primary economic activity at the
situs of a dispute may be viewed as more compel
ling than handbilling and other informational activi
ty at locations other than the primary situs [Ibid ]
The Board held that the Section 7 rights of the pickets
in that case were more compelling than the Respond
ent s property rights In reaching this conclusion, the
Board noted that United did not restrict public access to
the sidewalk in front of its supermarket From this cir
cumstance, the Board concluded that respondent had
"retained only a very limited property right claim to the
sidewalk in front of its supermarket United Supermar
kets, supra at 815
The Board s assessment of the Section 7 right under
scrutiny in United Supermarkets was that it was `a strong
one Id at 815 The Board rested this conclusion on
findings that the pickets, Sam and Price acting under
union direction, were attempting to protest the Re
spondent s asserted unfair treatment of its employees that
constituted alleged unfair labor practices and to bring
pressure on the Respondent to end these practices, as
well as to protest Respondent's alleged payment of
wages inferior to those of unionized stores Ibid The
Board also noted that the Respondent was the target of
the picketing and the situs of the picketing was immedi
ately in front of one of Respondents supermarkets at
which some of the alleged unfair labor practices had oc
curred Ibid Further the Board took into account that
the respondents customers were the intended audience
of the Union s picketing " Ibid Finally the Board noted
that among the pickets were two discharged employees
whose terminations had been alleged to constitute unfair
labor practices, and that it had found one of them to be
violative of the Act Id at 816
Comparing the facts before me in the instant cases
with those before the Board in United Supermarkets, I
find ample ground for reaching the same result regarding
the picketing and handbilling here Both the Lemont
Park & Shop and the Lockport Park & Shop respective
ly, share a shopping center with several other stores In
each instance, there is an extensive customer parking lot
in front of the Park & Shop store and the other shopping
center stores There are also entrances to each shopping
center s parking lot which provide easy access from the
bordering public roads and streets
Each of the Park & Shop stores shares a common side
walk with a row of other stores Pedestrians from the
963
parking lot are free to use these sidewalks as they pro
ceed to either the Park & Shop store or to any of the
other nearby stores There is no evidence that the
Lemont Corporation, the Lockport Corporation, Nation
al Property Analysts Inc Metro or any other mer
chants, make certain that all pedestrians using the
common sidewalks in their respective shopping centers
are customers of any of the merchants in their respective
shopping centers Aside from the student, civic, and reli
gious organizations seeking to use the Lemont Plaza
Shopping Center for activities likely to attract crowds
and occupy a considerable portion of its parking lot,
there was no showing of restrictions on lawful public
access to the sidewalk or parking lots in the two shop
ping centers The Lemont and the Lockport Corpora
tions have on occasion sought police assistance in remov
ing persons who were drunk or disorderly or harassing
the customers from the sidewalk adjacent to their re
spective stores I find, therefore that the Lemont Corpo
ration and the Lockport Corporation have retained only
a very limited property right claim to the sidewalk in
front of [their respective Park & Shop stores] United
Supermarkets, supra at 815
Although the Section 7 right at issue before me is not
as strong as that before the Board in United Supermar
kets, I find it was strong enough to outweigh the Lemont
Corporation s, Metro's, and the Lockport Corporation s
property rights As their handbills and picket signs pro
claimed, the former Ordman employees together with
the paid nonemployee union pickets, under the direction
of Locals 1540 and 1453 were attempting to protest the
unfair treatment of former Ordman employees at the
hands of the Lemont Corporation and the Lockport Cor
poration At the time the picketing and handbilling began
at the Lemont Corporations Park & Shop, Local 1540
had filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Re
gional Director for Region 13 alleging that the Lemont
Corporation's refusal to hire former Ordman employees
was violative of the Act On 21 May the Regional Di
rector dismissed that charge on evidentiary grounds On
5 September the General Counsel denied Local 1540 s
appeal Thus, the pickets in the instant cases were not
protesting unfair labor practices unlike the pickets in
United Supermarkets supra However here the Section
7 right of the pickets and handbillers to seek reinstate
ment to the positions they formerly enjoyed under the
prior owners of the Park & Shop stores was one of con
siderable strength Cf Dave Castellano & Sons, 277 NLRB
453 459-461 (1985)
That the Lemont Corporation and the Lockport Cor
poration openly solicited job applications from the gener
al public including former Ordman employees did not
deprive the pickets of cause for complaint For the pick
etng former Ordman employees were not interested in
applications They were seeking reinstatement to their
former jobs at the Park & Shop stores
Further as in United Supermarkets the Lemont Cor
poration and the Lockport Corporation, respectively,
were the targets of the picketing and handbilling in the
instant cases The situs of the picketing was in front of
the Lemont Corporation's store which had not hired a
964 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
majority of its employees from among the former
Ordman employees , and in front of the Lockport Corpo
ration s store , where former Ordman 's employees had
not been hired for one third of the available jobs
Here , as in United Supermarkets , the Park & Shop cus
tomers at the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center and the
Lockport Park & Shop customers at the Summit Plaza
Shopping Center, respectively, were the intended audi
ence for the messages on signs and handbills that the
pickets displayed Persons approaching the sidewalk en
trances to the Park & Shop stores were presumptively
members of that audience I find therefore that handbill
ing and picketing on the sidewalk in front of the Lemont
and Lockport Stop & Shop stores was an appropriate
means for the pickets to convey their message to this au
dience ' United Supermarkets , supra at 816
Finally , I find no merit in the Respondents conten
tions that the pickets misconduct at the Mokena Park &
Shop deprived the Lemont and Lockport pickets of the
protection of Section 7 of the Act For there has been no
showing that the pickets either at the Lemont Corpora
tion s Park & Shop or at the Lockport s Park & Shop,
whether on the sidewalk, or at the entrances to the shop
ping centers, obstructed store entrances , physically inter
fered with prospective customers or threatened any of
them , caused damage to Respondents property or dis
rupted Respondents business operations Nor has there
been any showing that any of the Respondents com
plained to the Lemont or Lockport police about any
picket line misconduct
In sum the pickets here asserted an important Section
7 interest which substantially outweighed the Respond
ents relatively weak property interests in restricting the
use of the sidewalks in front of both the Lemont Corpo
ration s Park & Shop and the Lockport Corporation's
Park & Shop Therefore, I find that the Section 7 right
exercised by Local 1540 Local 1453 and their respec
tive pickets outweighed the Respondents property
rights to remove the pickets from the sidewalks As the
Section 7 rights asserted in these cases substantially out
weighed the Respondents property rights, I find it un
necessary to consider whether Locals 1540 and 1453 had
access to reasonable alternative means for getting their
message to their intended audiences
In view of the foregoing I find that Metro violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by ordering Local 1450 not to
picket or handbill in the public areas, in front of the
Lemont Corporation's Park & Shop store and by asking
the Lemont Police Department to enforce Metro s order
I also find that the Lemont Corporation violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening Local 1540 s pickets
with arrest for trespassing , unless they ceased picketing
on the sidewalk adjacent to the Lemont Corporation's
Park & Shop and by causing the Lemont Police Depart
merit to remove Local 1540's pickets from the sidewalk
adjacent to Lemont s Park & Shop to the perimeter of
the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center I find that the Lock
port Corporation also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by ordering Local 1453 s and Local 1540's pickets away
from the sidewalk in front of the Lockport Corporation s
Park & Shop, and by threatening the pickets with arrest
if they did not leave the sidewalk adjacent to the Lock
port Corporations Park & Shop United Supermarkets,
supra at 816
However I find that the evidence did not sustain the
allegation that the Lockport Corporation caused the
Lockport Police Department to remove the pickets from
the sidewalk in front of the Lockport Corporations Park
& Shop Accordingly, I shall recommend dismissal of
this allegation
The Board has recognized that absent picket line mis
conduct , or a reasonable basis for anticipating such mis
conduct an employer engages in surveillance violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by photographing pickets
Waco Inc, 273 NLRB 746 747 (1984) Here, I find three
instances in which Lockport Corporation has engaged in
such unlawful conduct , as alleged
On 7 July, Rita Karatjas violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act when she photographed the pickets at the Lockport
Corporations Park & Shop store, as they were standing
on the sidewalk in front of the store At that time the
pickets were not engaging in misconduct , and there was
no showing that these pickets had given her sufficient
cause to anticipate that they would soon engage in vio
lence or other misconduct There was no showing that
the Lockport pickets had threatened to engage in or had
engaged in violence or other misconduct before Rita
Karatjas began photographing them on the first day of
their picketing and handbilling at the Lockport Corpora
tion s Park & Shop
I also find that the Lockport Corporations Park &
Shop manager Jerry Siwinski , violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act when he photographed the pickets in front of his
store on 14 July as they were peacefully picketing and
handbilling There has been no showing that at the time
Siwinski was taking pictures the pickets were either en
gaging in misconduct or that Siwinski reasonably antici
pated that the pickets would engage in misconduct as he
stood by
Finally I find that on 14 July George Karatjas on
behalf of the Lockport Corporation violated the Act
when he photographed the pickets at the same location
Again there was no showing that picket line misconduct
or reasonably anticipated misconduct excused George
Karatjas conduct In sum I find that by George Karat
jas conduct in this regard the Lockport Corporation vio
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Respondents Karatjas Family Lockport Corpora
tion d/b/a Ordman s Park & Shop Karatjas Family
Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ordman s Park & Shop and
Metro Resource Investments, Inc are each an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2) (6), and (7) of the Act
2 United Food and Commercial Workers Union,
Locals 1540 and 1453 United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO CLC are each
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of Act
3 Respondent Metro Resource Investments Inc has
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by ordering United
Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1540 not
ORDMAN S PARK & SHOP
to engage in peaceful picketing or handbilling activity in
the public areas in front of a retail store operated by
Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ordman's
Park & Shop and by requesting the Lemont Police De
partment to prohibit Local 1540 from picketing or hand
billing in the public area of Metro s Lemont Plaza Shop
ping Center, in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont Cor
poration s hiring policy
4 Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ord
man s Park & Shop has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
threatening Local 1540 s pickets with arrest for trespass
ing, if they did not remove their picketing and handbill
ing, which was in protest of Karatjas Family Lemont
Corporations hiring policy, away from public areas adja
cent to the Lemont Corporations Park & Shop store and
by causing the Lemont Police Department to remove
Local 1540's pickets away from the public areas adjacent
to Lemont Corporations Park & Shop store to remote
areas, at the entrance to the Lemont Plaza Shopping
Center
5 Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ord
man s Park & Shop has engaged in unfair labor practices
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating the im
pression of surveillance of employees exercising their
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating the impression of
surveillance of employees exercising their Section 7
rights, by photographing Local 1453 s and 1450 s peace
ful pickets by ordering Local 1453 s and Local 1540 s
peaceful pickets to move away from the public area adja
cent to the Lockport Corporation's Park & Shop store to
the perimeter of the Summit Plaza Shopping Center, and
by threatening Local 1453 s and Local 1540 s peaceful
pickets with arrest if they did not leave the public area
adjacent to Lockport Corporations Park & Shop store at
the Summit Plaza Shopping Center when the pickets
were peacefully picketing and handbilltng in protest of
Karatjas Family Lockport Corporations hiring policy
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act
7 Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation d/b/a Ord
man s Park & Shop has not engaged in unfair labor prac
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
causing the Lockport Police Department to remove
Local 1540 s and Local 1453 s pickets from public areas
adjacent to the Lockport Corporations Park & Shop
store
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents unlawfully inter
fered with restrained and coerced employees in the ex
ercise of their Section 7 rights, I shall recommend that
they be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct
and take such affirmative action as I find necessary to
remedy the effects of the unfair labor practices and to of
fectuate the policies of the Act
965
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record I issue the following recommend
ed7
ORDER
A The Respondent, Metro Resource Investments,
Inc, Hinsdale , Illinois, its officers , agents, successors,
and assigns shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Ordering United Food and Commercial Workers
Union, Local 1540, or any other labor organization not
to engage in peaceful picketing and handbilling in the
public areas adjacent to Karatjas Family Lemont Corpo
rations Ordman's Park & Shop store in the Lemont
Shopping Plaza, Lemont, Illinois, in protest of Respond
ent Karatjas Family Lemont Corporations failure to hire
former employees of Ordman s Park & Shop stores
(b) Advising or requesting the Lemont, Illinois Police
Department to prohibit any employees or any representa
tives of United Food and Commercial Workers Union
Local 1540, or of any other labor organization, from
picketing or handbilltng peacefully in the public areas of
the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center in protest of Karatjas
Family Lemont Corporations failure to hire former em
ployees of Ordman s Park & Shop stores
(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) Post at conspicuous places in the Lemont Plaza
Shopping Center, copies of the attached notice marked
Appendix B 8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 13 after being
signed by the Respondents authorized representative
shall be posted by the Respondent Metro Resource In
vestments , Inc immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond
ent Metro Resource Investments, Inc to ensure that the
notices are not altered defaced or covered by any other
material
(b) Sign and mail sufficient copies of the notice to the
Regional Director for posting by Karatjas Family
Lemont Corporation d/b/a Ordman s Park & Shop if it
is willing, in conspicuous places, at its Lemont Shopping
Plaza Park & Shop store Lemont Illinois including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted
° 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
a If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation
al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board
966 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply
B The Respondent, Karatjas Family Lemont Corpora
tion d/b/a Ordman s Park & Shop Lemont, Illinois its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening to cause the arrest, causing the arrest,
or attempting to cause the arrest of any employee, or of
any representative of United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, Local 1540, United Food and Commer
cial Workers' International Union AFL-CIO, CLC,
while they are peacefully picketing and handbilling on
public areas adjacent to the Karatjas Family Lemont
Corporations Park & Shop store at the Lemont Plaza
Shopping Center Lemont Illinois, in protest of Karatjas
Family Lemont Corporation's failure to hire former Ord
man s Park & Shop employees
(b) Causing or attempting to cause the Lemont Illinois
Police Department to remove employees or representa
tives of Local 1540, or of any other labor organization,
from public areas adjacent to Karatjas Family Lemont
Corporation's Park & Shop store, to the perimeter of the
Lemont Plaza Shopping Center, while they are peaceful
ly picketing and handbilling in protest of Karatjas
Family Lemont Corporation's failure to hire former Ord
man s Park & Shop employees
(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) Post at its Ordman s Park & Shop store, located in
the Lemont Plaza Shopping Center Lemont, Illinois,
copies of the attached notice marked Appendix C "9
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 13, after being signed by the Re
spondent s authorized representative shall be posted by
the Respondent Karatjas Family Lemont Corporation
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered defaced, or covered by
any other material
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply
C The Respondent, Karatjas Family Lockport Corpo
ration d/b/a Ordman's Park & Shop, Lockport Illinois,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Engaging in surveillance by photographing pickets
acting on behalf of United Food and Commercial Work
ers Union , Locals 1540 and 1453, United Food and Com
mercial Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, CLC,
as they lawfully and peacefully picket or distribute hand
bills outside the Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation s
Park & Shop store at the Summit Plaza Shopping
Center , Lockport Illinois
(b) Ordering employees , or any representative of
Local 1540, Local 1453, or of any other labor organiza
tion who are peacefully picketing or handbilling in pro
test of the Karatjas Family Lockport Corporations fail
ure to hire former employees of Ordman s Park & Shop
stores at Karatjas Family Lockport Corporations Park &
Shop , to move from the public area adjacent to the Kar
atjas Family Lockport Corporations Park & Shop store
to the perimeter of the Summit Plaza Shopping Center
(c) Threatening pickets on behalf of Locals 1540 and
1453 with arrest for trespassing , if they did not remove
their peaceful picketing and handbilling activity in pro
test of Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation's failure to
hire former employees of Ordman s Park & Shop stores,
away from the public areas adjacent to Karatjas Family
Lockport Corporation's Park & Shop store, at the
Summit Plaza Shopping Center , Lockport, Illinois to the
perimeter of the Summit Plaza Shopping Center
(d) 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) Post at its Ordman s Park & Shop store located in
the Summit Plaza shopping Center Lockport Illinois
copies of the attached notice marked Appendix D 10
Copies of the notice , on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 13 after being signed by the Re
spondent s authorized representative shall be posted by
the Respondent Karatjas Family Lockport Corporation
d/b/a Ordman 's Park & Shop immediately upon receipt
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al
tered , defaced , or covered by any other material
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the amended con
solidated complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges vio
lations of the Act not specifically found in this decision
9 See fn 8 supra 10 See fn 8 supra