Owen's IGA Foodliner

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 277 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

OWEN'S IGA FOODLINER
William P . Owen d/b/a Owen's IGA Foodiiner and
Retail Clerks Union Local 1439, Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO. Cases 19-
CA-4329 and 19-CA-4342
January 30, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND
JENKINS
On July 31, 1970, Trial Examiner George H.
O'Brien issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take. certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examin-
er further found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint, and recommended that those allegations
be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs,
and the Respondent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner;nade at the hearing and finds that no preju-
dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, William P. Owen d/b/a Owen's IGA
Foodliner, Spokane, Washington, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. '
1 In footnote 5 of the Trial Examiner's Decision , substitute "20" for "10"
days.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
277
GEORGE H. O'BRIEN , Trial Examiner : On June 9 and 10,
1970, a hearing was held in the above-entitled matter in
Spokane , Washington . The complaint, issued May 5, 1970,
is based on charges filed by the Union on March 25 and
April 3, 1969, as amended April 11, 1969 , and alleges viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding , including my
observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the posthearing briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
William P. Owen d /b/a Owen's IGA Foodliner, herein
called Respondent, owns and operates three retail grocery
stores in Spokane, Washington . The gross annual sales of
these three stores exceed $500,000 and include sales of
goods from out of state valued in excess of $50,000. Respon-
dent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Act engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Clerks Union Local 1439, Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association , AFL-CIO , herein called the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The complaint alleges in substance and the answer denies
that: (1) All employees of Respondent's store 1 located at
29th Street and Regal Street, excluding supervisors and
meat department employees constitute an appropriate unit
for collective bargaining; (2) from and after February 19,
1969, the Union represented a majority of the employees in
said unit; (3) between March 1 and 14, 1969, Respondent
granted benefits to employees to induce them to abandon
the Union; (4) the conduct of Respondent was of such a
nature as to preclude the holding of a fair election; and (5)
"Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices of such
an extensive and pervasive character as to require the is-
suance of a bargaining order even in the absence of an
8(a)(5) violation. The Sinclair Company v. N.L.RB., 395
U.S. 575."
B. Sequence of Events
On February 18, 1969, Randall Munro, a clerk in store 1
went to the union office in Spokane and signed an applica-
tion for membership in the Union. On the same date Allen
Robert Annis, a box boy, signed an application. On the
following day applications were signed by clerks Joan An-
derson, Mark Weidman, and Catherine Usher. These five
constituted a clear majority of the employees in the unit
hereinafter found appropriate for collective bargaining.
On the evening a,appropriate 19 union organizer Arnold
Needam, called on Thelma M. Luckey at her home. Luckey
had been employed as a clerk at Respondent's store 2 since
188 NLRB No. 37
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
October 1965. She signed an application after being told by
Needham that a majority of Respondent's employees had
joined the Union. On the following morning, February 20,
Luckey learned by questioning her fellow employees at
store 2 that none had beets approached by the Union. On
the evening of February 21 she telephoned Needham and
asked that h' application be returned, stating:
I told iiim that I went to work the next day and I
found out that no one else had been approached by the
union or had signed a card from our store and he led
me to believe a majority from our store had signed and
there wasn't.
Needham complied. Two other clerks at store 2, Rose Wal-
ters and Violet Willms, signed applications on February 21
at the request of Needham. Within the week Luckey told her
store manager , Paul Meyer, that she had signed a card and
that it had been returned to her. Meyer made no comment.
On some date toward the end of February or the begin-
of March Munro had a conversation with William
Owen. Munro told Owen that the employees at store 1 were
"disappointed" by the fact that employees of a Safeway
store under union contract less than a block away were
receiving higher wages for the same work, and Respondent's
employees were thinking about joining the Union. Munro
asked Owen what he would do if the store went union. Owen
replied: "There is nothing I can do. If the people want to
join the Union there is no way I can stop them .... One
of my stores is union, two of my stores are not union. What
matters to me is the wage percentage. I can work with the
union scale or without the union scale . It doesn't matter to
me. It is what the people want .... I wish we could negotiate
together instead of going through a union, but that is up to
them." Munro asked if Owen would meet with the employ-
ees if they desired such a meeting and Owen replied that he
would meet if requested. Owen suggested that Munro talk
to the other employees and see what they wanted.
A day or two later Munro described to his fellow employ-
ees, Anderson, Usher, Annis, Tom Wolfe, and Bernard F.
(Bud) Bishop, his conversation with Owen. They decided
that they "would like to have a meeting with Owen directl'
so they could personally talk with him about the situation.
Munro reported this decision to Owen who agreed to meet
with the employees of store 1 on the following Sunday,
(probably) March 9, at 9 p.m. on the employees' own time
after the store closed.
The meeting was held as scheduled in Owen's office. The
employees present were Bud Bishop and the five who had
signedyunion applications. The only bargaining it em-
ployees who did not attend were box boy Thomas Wolfe
(hired in February) and bottle boy Paul Savanish.
There was general discussion . One of the employees had
a copy of the standard union contract. Owen suggested
three alternatives. (1) They could leave things as they were.
(2) They could have the union pay scale without the union
contract, (3) They could have the Union. Owen explained
that under any of these proposals the total wages paid could
not exceed a fixed percentage of the gross sales of the store.
If the employees selected either the second or the third
alternative, they would work fewer hours per week for high-
er rates of pay per hour. Owen exhibited a tentative sched-
ule showing the name and days and hours which each
employee would work under either the second or third alter-
native, which contemplated identical hourly rates. He re-
minded the employees that there was available, through
Roundup Grocery Company, health and welfare insurance
comparable to that in the union contract, and that Munro
and Bishop had availed themselves of this privilege. At some
time during this meeting one of the employees said "Some
of us have signed a union card."
After presenting his proposals, Owen left the meeting and
waited in his car in the parking lot. The employees then had
a discussion and an oral vote and decided "to go with
Owen's plan rather than continue with the Union. Owen
was informed of this decision by Usher, Munro, and Bishop,
who then asked, "What are we going to do about the cards
we signed?" Owen replied, "I suppose you ask for them
back. Give Danny O'Bri en of the Retail Clerks a call and
let him know."
On the following day the new schedule and the new hour-
ly rates went into effect at store 1. Munro went to the union
office, reported to Mr. O'Brien on the occurrences of the
night before, and asked that all five applications be returned
to the signers.
Early in March at store 2 clerk Violet Willms told Owen
that since she was working nights she was entitled to more
money. Owen agreed and raised her pay by 20 or 25 cents
effective March 11, 1969. Union was not mentioned in the
conversation. In mid-March or late March, when Owen and
Willms were having a general conversation about unions,
Owen "said he would be glad to meet union wages if that
was what the employees wanted but he wished they would
come to him with their problems before going to any place
else." About the same time (mid or late March) Owen men-
tioned to Luckey that store 2 employees could have a meet-
ing and discuss `if they wanted to go union or whatever they
wanted to do." Owen, in explanation of the foregoing, testi-
fied:
Q. At that time did you make any wage raises to the
employees of your Monroe Street store.
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you have a meeting with the employees?
A. No, I did not. When the people came to me and
asked me questions about that they had been ap-
proached by the union, I said, "I don't want to know
whether you have signed a card or not." I said, "If the
people would like to have a meeting and J would be
invited to it, then, fine," but I did not grant any wage
raises or promise them anything unless they asked me
first....
Under date of March 19, 1969, O'Brien wrote to Owen
stating that the Union represented a majority of
Respondent's employees at stores 1 and 2, offering to dem-
onstrate the truth of the claim, demanding recognition of
the Union, and suggesting a meeting at the union office on
March 26.Owen posted this letter on the employee bulletin
board at store 1 on March 20. That evening at her home
Usher typed the following letter:
Mr. Danny O'Brien,
We the employees of Owen's IGA No. 1-29th and
Regal have previously asked for the return of our Un-
ion applications. As of now we have not received them
and we the undersigned hereby ask for the immediate
return of them.
The above letter bearing the signatures of Munro, Ander-
son, Usher, Annis, and Weidman was hand delivered to the
union office by Munro on March 21.
On March 25 the Union filed the charge docketed as Case
19-CA-4329 alleging intimidation and coercion at both
stores in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On March 26 Owen met at the union office with O'Brien
and with Roger Clark, the Union's regional coordinator for
Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska. The union rep-
resentatives produced eight applications for membership
and stated that these represented a majority of
OWEN'S IGA FOODLINER
Respondent's employees at both stores. Owen replied that
these eight did not constitute a majority.)One of the union
representatives then asked for the names of all the employ-
ees that Owen had in the two stores. Owen testified:
They asked me what some of the names were and I
was half-way through when I thought I had better talk
to my counsel before I opened my mouth too much.
On April 3, 1969, the Union filed the charge docketed as
Case 19-CA-4342 alleging that on February 21, 1969, Re-
spondent destroyed the Union's majority status by conduct
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and refused to recog-
nize or bargain with the Union. On April 11, 1969, the
second charge was amended to allege that Respondent de-
stroyed the Union's majority on February 21, 1969, and has
since refused to recognize and bargain with the Union, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The General
Counsel's complaint issued on May 5, 1970.
C. The Appropriate Units and the Union 's Representation
Therein
The General Counsel argues that store 1 constitutes a
separate appropriate unit. The Union argues, in addition,
that stores I and 2 also constitute a single appropriate unit.
The Respondent argues:
. in a situation of this sort, the Board could properly
determine that either single stores or multiple store
units are appropriate for bargaining purposes. Howev-
er, the charging party has insisted that the unit consists
of both stores, and it would be unusual indeed for a
bargaining order to result for a different bargaining
unit than that which the charging party contends exists.
Respondent in this case would indeed be delivered a
Hobson's Choice since by expression. of a good faith
doubt that the union represented a majority in the bar-
gaining unit demanded, he would, at his peril risk that
the Board would select a smaller bargaining unit, there-
by placing the employer in a position of refusal to
bargain over a unit different than that for which de-
mand was made.
The factors favoring a two-store unit are the followings
Owen controls the labor relations of both stores, spends
about 40 hours per week at each store, and, in the absence
of the respective store managers , directly supervises the
store employees. Both stores are in the same city, only about
6 miles apart . The meat department employees at both
stores are represented by the same union of Meatcutters in
a single-multtistore unit, which also includes store 3.
The factors favoring a single-store unit are: Each store
has its own manager who has complete charge of hiring,
firing, scheduling work, and directing all the employees in
his respective store. There is no interchange of employees
between stores. The stores are on opposite sides of the city,
with communication between them impeded by the Spo-
kane River, railroad tracks, and freeway. Respondent rec-
ognized the appropriateness of a separate store unit in his
negotiations with Munro and the store 1 employees.
All parties agree that the store managers and the meat
department employees should be excluded from either unit.
They differ on the unit placement of the following individ-
uals:
i These eight included the applications of Weidman , who had resigned his
employment on March 18 , and of Forrest D. Wilbanks , an employee of store
2, signed March 24, 1969. The Union did not have the application of Luckey
and did not present the photostatic copy which it had retained , It was thus
clear to Owen that the Union held applications from only 7 of the 15 or 16
eligible employees in the two stores.
279
Guy Reed; Bernard Bishop, assistant manager, store 1; Paul
Savanish, bottle boy, store 1; Louis Mendoza, store 2; and
Jerome Carlson, store 2.
Guy Reed had retired after working for more than 24
years for Albersons, the last 12 of which he was a supervisor.
In February 1969 Owen engaged Reed for a salary of $125
per month to rearrange all three of Respondent's stores to
put them in a better merchandising. situation. In February
and March 1969 Reed worked at store 1, in'April at store
2, in May at store 3, and in June at store I, when his
assignment was completed and his employment terminated.
Reed reported directly to Owen and did not receive instruc-
tion from any store manager. Neither did he wait on cus-
tomers, man the check stand, or direct the work of any other
employee. When Reed worked at store 3 where Respondent
had a union-shop contract with the Union, Reed was not
required to join. I find that Reed was either' a managerial
employee, or an independent contractor and should be ex-
cluded from either proposed bargaining unit.
Bernard Bishop works as a clerk at store I from 2 to 9
U in., Monday through Saturday. The store manager, Chris
Oster, is on duty from 7 or 8 a.m. to,6 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. Owen Won duty and manages the store on Sun-
day an
.
some evenings,during the week. In the absence
of both Oster and Owen, Bishop is in charge of the store.
Bishop has non of the statutory indicia of supervisory au-
thority. His interests are identical with -those of his fellow
clerks and he should'be included in the bargaining unit.
Paul Savanish worked at store 1 one-half hour every da ,
Monday through Friday, and 3 hours on Saturday. HYs
duties were to keep the basement cleaned up, take out,the
used cartons and put them in the incinerator, and take care
of the empty soft drink bottles which had been returned for
refund. He was paid weekly. •I find that Savanish was a
regular part-time employee whose,interests were closely re-
lated to those of box boys and that he should be included
in the bargainin unit.
Louis Mendozg a worked at store 2. He was required to be
on duty at 6:30 a.m. to help unload the freight when it
arrived on Tuesdays and Fridays. If he completed this task
before time for him to report for his regular job as a dish-
washer at a neighboring establishment he performed the
normal clerk's tasks of stamping and stocking merchandise.
I find that Mendoza was a regular part-time employee and
that he should be included in the bargaining unit deemed
most appropnate by the Union.
Jerome Carlson was a college student and worked part
time at store 2 'as a box boy and checker and helped, to
unload the truck. In the first quarter of 1969 he earned $318.
Carlson was a regular part-time employee and should ,be
included in the unit deemed most appropriate by the Union.
I find that a unit limited to the employees of store I is
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. Purity
Food Stores Inc., etc., 60'NLRB 651, and cases there cited.
I further find that from February 19 through March 9, 1969,
the Union held valid designations from five employees in an
appropriate unit of eight employees at store I.i
At no time did the Union 'represent a majority,of the
employees in a two-store unit. There were, between Feb-
ruary 19 and March 10, 1969, 16 employees in the unit? The
Union in this period held valid designations from only seven
of these employees. The application of Luckey was obtained
under a misunderstanding and was promptly returned.
There is no,competent credible evidence that Luckey's re-
2 The unit employees at store I were : Anderson, Annis, Bishop , Munro,
,Usher, Weidman , Wolfe, and Savanish
i The unit employees at store 2 were - Carlson, Jannsen, Luckey, Senter,
Walters, Wibanks, Wilms, and Mendoza
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quest for the return of her card was influenced in any way
be any action of Respondent.
D. Concluding Findings
Respondent was enticed into the commission of unfair
labor practices by the conduct of Munro in inviting Owen
to bid" against Munro's threat to go to the Union. All of
Owen 's statements and actions prior to the moment on the
night of March 9 when he was informed , "some of us have
signed union cards ," were within the protective ambit of
management prerogative and free speech . Prior to that mo-
ment Owen could reasonably believe that Munro was
speak infor a majority of his employees at store 1 , as in fact
he was.-The proposals made by Owen were fair and open
and honest . He was abiding by contracts with two unions
and other than expressing a mild preference for direct deal-
ings made no antiunion statements . One of his alternatives
contemplated that his employees would , after making their
decision, request union representation and that Owen
would, on request , sign the standard union contract.
When , however , Owen was informed : "some of us have
signed union cards ," he was put on notice that the Union
was currently interested in securing the right of representa-
tion, and put on notice that the Union might be, as it was
in fact at that very moment , the exclusive statutory repre-
sentative of his employees for collective bargainingy con-
tinuing to offer improvements in wages and working
conditions and by implementing improvements in wages
and hours after notice of the pendency of union activity,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N. L.R.B. v.
Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405 . The Union contributed
to this enticement by failing to advise Respondent of the
fact that it represented a majority of the employees at store
1, while it attempted to secure sufficient authorizations from
employees at store 2 to support a demand for recognition
at both locations . Other than the grant of hi gher wages and
shorter hours to store I employees , Respondent engaged in
no unfair labor practices . The wage increase to W llms was
granted at her request in conformity with established prac-
tice and in ignorance of her involvement with the Union
and ignorance of the existence of any attempt by the Union
to organize . The hours of one employee were reduced, but
at her own request , and this did not constitute an unfair
labor practice . The comments of Owen to Willms and to
Luckey were protected by Section 8(c) of the Act.
Finally there is no explanation on this record for the fact
that the General Counsel held this charge for a full year
before deciding to issue complaint . See N.L.R.B. v. Mike
Trama , 293 F .2d 28 (C.A. 9, 1961) and Clark's Gamble Corp.
v. N.L.R. B., 422 F .2d 845 (C.A. 6, March 4, 1970).
There has been no refusal to bargain within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. The Supreme Court held in
N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575, 614
(1969), that the Board "has long had a ... policy of issuing
a bargaining order , in the absence of a Section 8(a)(5) viola-
tion or even a bargaining demand , when that was the only
available , effective remedy for substantial unfair labor prac-
tices ...." And in the Sinclair case , one of the cases covered
by the Gissel decision , the Supreme Court sustained a bar-
galning order even though the findings which the Court
deemed necessary for a Section 8(aX5) violation were lack-
ing. The Court said (p. 615): "the Board made a finding, left
undisturbed by the First Circuit [397 F .2d 157] that the
employer's threats of reprisal were so coercive that , even in
the absence of a Section 8(a)(5) violation, a bargaining order
would have been necessary to repair the unlawful effect of
those threats."
Neither of the conditions suggested by the Supreme
Court is satisfied here, and there is, on this record, no sup-
port for an order requiring Respondent to bargain with the
Union in any unit.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re-
spondent described in section I, above , have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices I will recommend that he cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from
interfering with, restraining , or coercing his employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the
Act by granting economic benefits and by changing the
terms and conditions of employment. However, nothing
herein shall be construed as requiring the Respondent to
vary or abandon any economic benefit or any term or con-
dition of employment which he has heretofore established.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. William P. Owen d/b/a Owen's IGA Foodliner, Re-
spondent herein, is an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce and in a business
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Retail Clerks Union Local 1439, Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By granting certain economic benefits to his employ-
ees and by changing certain terms and conditions of em-
ployment at a time when the Union was seeking to organize
his employees, the Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of
Section 8(axl) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, I
hereby recommend that Respondent, William P. Owen
d/b/a Owen's IGA Foodliner, his agents , successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing his em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act by granting them economic benefits or by changing
the terms and conditions of their employment; provided,
however, that nothing in this Recommended Order shall be
construed as requiring Respondent to vary or abandon any
OWEN'S IGA FOODLINER
economic benefit or any term or condition of employment
which he has heretofore established.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing his employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to
join or assist Retail Clerks-Union Local 1439, Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization , to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosin gg , and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at his store 1 located at 29th Street and Regal
Street in Spokane, Washington, copies of the attached no-
tice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for Region 19, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by him for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced , or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.5
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES-
281
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interfere with , restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act by granting them economic bene-
fits , or by changing the terms or conditions of their
employment , provided , however , that nothing in this
Decision and Order requires us to vary or abandon any
economic benefit or any term or condition of employ-
ment which has heretofore been established.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist Retail Clerks Union Local 1439, Retail Clerks
International Association , AFL-CIO, or any other la-
bor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , 'and to eng sge in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of labor or-
ganizations of their own choosing.
WILLIAM P. OWEN
d/b/a OwEN's IGA FOODLINER
(Employer)
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec ., 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as
provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the
Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order , and all objections
thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes . In the event that the Board's
Order is enforced by a.Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the
words in the notice reading "Posted by order of the National Labor Relations
Board" shall be • changed,to read "Posted pursuant to a judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals enforcing an order of the National Labor
Relations Board."
s In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this
provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the Regional Director for Re-
gion 19, in writing , within 10 -days from the date of this Order , what steps
it has taken to comply herewith."
Dated By
(Representative) • (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office , Repub-
lic Bldg ., 10th Floor, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle , Washing-
ton 98101 , Telephone 206-583-7473.