Retail Clerks Union, Local 770

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 5, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 1166 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association, AFL-CIO and Fine's Food Co.
Case 31-CB-2004
April 5, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On November 29, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Russell L. Stevens issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and General Counsel
filed a brief in opposition to Respondent's excep-
tions.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent , Retail Clerks
Union , Local 770, Retail Clerks International Asso-
ciation , AFL-CIO, Los Angeles , California, its
officers , agents , and representatives shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL L. STEVENS , Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard at Los Angeles, California, on March 5,
1976.1 The Administrative Law Judge who presided at the
hearing became unavailable after the hearing to prepare a
decision; thus , the case was referred to me on September
28, 1976, with consent of all parties, for preparation and
issuance of a decision herein .2 The complaint , issued
December 24, 1975, is based on a charge filed August 25 by
Fine's Food Co., hereinafter referred to as the Company.
The complaint alleges that Retail Clerks Union, Local 770,
Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO , herein-
after referred to as Respondent or as the Union, violated
Section 8(b)(1)(B) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses , to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs, which
have been carefully considered , were filed on behalf of
General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record of the case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Fine's Food Co. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Los Angeles, California,
where it is engaged in the operation of two retail food
markets . In the course and conduct of its business
operations , the Company annually derives gross revenues
in excess of $500,000 and annually purchases goods valued
in excess of $2,000 which originate outside the State of
California.
I find that the Company is now, and at all times material
herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and a
business affecting commerce, within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association, AFL-CIO, is now, and at all times
material herein has been, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) and 8(b) of the Act.
in. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
Background
The Company owns two retail food markets in Los
Angeles-one located on Florence Avenue (herein called
the Florence store) and one located on East Olympic
Boulevard (herein called the Olympic store). Alan Fine
(herein called A. Fine) is vice president of the Company
and manager of the Florence store . Cecil Fine (herein
called C. Fine) is general manager of the Company and
manager of the Olympic store. Jack Fine (herein called J.
Fine) is an attorney, and at times relevant herein was the
Company's negotiator and bargaining representative. A.,
C., and J. Fine are brothers.
The Employers Council, Inc. (herein called the Council),
is a multiemployer bargaining organization representing
most of the employers in the retail food industry in
Southern California in matters of collective -bargaining and
adjustment of grievances . Most of the Council 's members
are large , chainstore operations . The Company never has
been a member of the Council, nor represented by the
Council. The Council historically has bargained with
Respondent for agreements covering employees of Council
members.
Independent Merchants Association of Southern Califor-
nia (herein called the Association ) was the collective-
bargaining representative for independent retail food
stores, including the Company, in 1972, 1973, and 1974. In
or about June 1975 the Association became inactive and
I All dates hereinafter are within 1975, unless stated to be otherwise.
2 Sec 102 .25 and 102 .35 of the Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended.
228 NLRB No. 157
RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 770
discontinued negotiating on behalf of its members, and J.
Fine became the Company's negotiator.
In the past , the Company has negotiated "interim"
contracts with Respondent, which provided, inter alia, that
the Company would be bound to contract terms agreed
upon for appropriate periods, between the Council and
Respondent . The principal reason for such an arrangement
was I to provide terms that were uniform for chain stores
and' independent stores, yet relieve the latter from the
burden of strikes against chain stores . The independent
stores thus could remain open during strikes against chain
stores.
Ricardo Icaza (Icaza) is, and at all times relevant herein
has been , secretary-treasurer of Respondent, with responsi-
bility for directing the activities of Respondent 's business
representatives . Rod Diamond (Diamond) is a business
representative for Respondent , and since 1971 his duties
have included union matters involving the Company's
Olympic store. Carl Carr (Carr) is Respondent's director of
collective bargaining , education , and research and was
involved with negotiations relevant herein, as discussed
below. Marilyn Grace (Grace) is special counsel for
Respondent and also was involved with said negotiations.
Celestine Graves (Graves) is Respondent's representative
for the Florence store.
The most recent collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Company and Respondent was negotiated by the
Association, and was effective April 1, 1972, through
March 31, 1975. By agreement of the parties it was
extended to July 27, 1975. On approximately April 21,
1975, Respondent timely notified the Company and other
retail food stores that it desired to negotiate a new
collective-bargaining agreement . The first negotiating
session between the Company and Respondent was held
on July 24, with J. Fine representing the Company and
Carr and Grace representing Respondent. At that session
Carr presented to J. Fine a copy of Respondent's 66-page
proposal, which also had been presented to the Council.
On or about July 30, agents of Respondent posted notices
in the Company's two stores, calling a "$25 fine" meeting
on August 4, 1975 to present the "employer's offer, if any,"
and "to authorize a strike if necessary." Also on or about
July 30, Respondent notified the Food & Drug Council
and Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO,
that a dispute existed with the Company. The Food &
Drug Council notified the Company by letter dated August
6, that "the Union has requested that the Council sanction
economic action contemplated by the Union" and that the
Company was being placed on the Council's "We do not
patronize list." On August 4 said "fine meeting" was held
at Respondent's offices in Los Angeles. The employees at
that meeting voted in favor of authorizing the Union to call
a strike, if necessary. By letter to the Company dated
August 13, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor
set an August 19 hearing date to determine if a strike
sanction should be granted against the Company.
The second negotiating session between representatives
of the Company and Respondent was held at 2 p.m. on
August 13. Negotiations lasted until 6:45 p.m., with J. Fine
and C. Fine representing the Company, and Carr and
Grace representing Respondent . It was agreed at that time
1167
that a further negotiating session would be held on August
20. At or about 7:15 a.m. on August 14 C. Fine signed an
"interim" agreement presented to him by Respondent, and
it is that act which gave rise to the present controversy. By
signing the interim agreement Respondent bound itself to
any agreement thereafter negotiated between Respondent
and the Council. On or about September 11, Respondent
notified the Company and other independent food stores
that Respondent and the Council had negotiated a new 3-
year contract. On or about September 15 the Company
began implementing the new wage rates and other
provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement entered
into between Respondent and the Council approximately
September 11, 1975.
Issues
The principal issues are:
A. Whether Respondent threatened to strike, and
struck, the Company with the object of forcing it to execute
an interim agreement, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of
the Act.
B. Whether Respondent's threat to strike, and strike,
against the Company constituted an attempt to force the
Employer to agree to a nonmandatory subject of bargain-
ing (i.e., designation of the Food Employers Council as its
bargaining representative) in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of
the Act.
C. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(b)(3) of the
Act by coercing the Employer to agree to a future
collective-bargaining agreement to be negotiated by a
multiemployer association to which it did not belong.
A. The Alleged 8(b)(1)(B) Violation
General Counsel contends that the signing of the interim
agreement by the Company was occasioned by coercion on
the part of Respondent and was involuntary; further, that
Respondent's coercive conduct violated the Act because
the interim agreement had the effect of causing the
Company involuntarily to designate the Council as the
Company's bargaining representative.
1. The interim agreement
The interim agreement provides in pertinent part as
follows:
A. The current Agreement is hereby extended and
shall continue in effect as of July 28, 1975, with it being
understood and agreed that all terms , provisions,
conditions of employment and all benefits without
limitation shall remain in effect until the termination or
expiration of the Memorandum Agreement.
B. In the event that a Successor Agreement to the
existing Agreement, which expires by its terms on July
27, 1975, is negotiated with the Food Employers
Council, Inc. on behalf of its employer-members and
ratified by the affected membership, then and in that
event, the undersigned parties jointly agree to execute
and be bound by all the terms, provisions and
conditions of employment set forth therein including,
but trot limited to, contributions required to be made to
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the various trust funds . It being further understood and
agreed that said Successor Agreement shall replace and
succeed to the current existing Labor Agreement and
shall supercede and replace this Memorandum Agree-
ment.
C. Should the Successor Agreement provide for
retroactive wages to employees , such wages shall be put
in effect on the first Monday after notification by the
Union to the Employer of ratification of the Agreement
negotiated by Food Employers Council , Inc. and the
Union . All retroactive wage payments must be paid to
employees no later than thirty days after the Employer
has received the notice set forth in this paragraph.
D. This Memorandum Agreement shall remain in
effect for a period of one year to and including July 27,
1976, subject to earlier termination as set forth in
Paragraph C, and it being further understood that in
the event negotiations with Food Employers Council,
Inc. should result in no agreement or becomes unduly
protracted , then and in that event , no sooner than
thirty days after July 28, 1975, either party may notify
the other party in writing of their desire to negotiate
separately for a Successor Agreement.
A "Successor Agreement" referred to in the interim
agreement , quoted above, was negotiated between the
Council and the Union and provides , inter alia:
The Employer [note : the Council ] recognizes the Union
as the sole collective bargaining agent....
The "Successor Agreement" is a very detailed, exhaustive
contract of 66 pages and covers virtually every facet of
labor-management relations.
There is no question but what the interim agreement and
its successor agreement3 have the effect of making the
Council the exclusive bargaining representative of the
Company. It is so found.
2. The history of the interim agreement
The record only briefly touches on the history and
background of the interim agreement , but it is clear that:
(a) such an agreement regularly was entered into prior to
1972, and (b) its use was discontinued in 1975 . A. Fine's
following testimony was not disputed by Respondent:
Q. At the time back in May sometime when Ms.
Graves talked to you about some sort of an interim
agreement, do you know what an interim agreement is?
Did you know what she was talking about?
A. Yeah.
Q. Tell me.
A. In the past we have signed interim agreements
and it bound us to an Employer Council's contract.
Q. Over the past 20 years or whatever it was, you
have always done this, have you not?
A. Not the last contract, no. Prior to that, not four
years ago, but prior to that we had.
3 The successor agreement basically is in the same form as earlier
agreements between the Council and the Union , and the successor
Q. The last contract you were represented by the
Independent Merchants -
A. Right.
Q. - Association?
A. Right, and we did not sign.
Q. And at the time you talked to Celestine in May,
you had - you said something about your being
represented by the Independent Merchants, right?
A. Right.
J. Fine, who negotiated for Association from 1972
through 1975, testified without contradiction, as follows:
A. Well, I think we made it clear to them ever since
'72, consistently, and we reiterated that in '75 that we
did not want to be bound by the FEC negotiations. We
wanted to know what it was that our company was
going to be bound to with respect to our -
Juoon: By FEC you mean Food Employer's Coun-
cil?
TEE WrrNBss: Yes, sir.
It is apparent from the foregoing, and it is found , that the
Company opposed at times relevant herein , as it had since
1972, the signing of an interim agreement . It is equally
apparent that the Company wanted separately to negotiate
with Respondent in 1975, as discussed below.
3. The 1975 negotiations
On or about April 21 Respondent addressed timely
notices to the Company and others , advising that it desired
to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement.
Near the end of May, Graves approached A. Fine at the
Florence store . She said she had an interim agreement with
her, and she asked A. Fine if he wanted to sign it. He
declined, and said the store was represented by the
Association. In early June, Diamond approached C. Fine,
who testified without contradiction as follows:
A. Early June of '75 Rod came to the store, asked
me to sign an interim agreement for the new contract.
Q. What did you say at that time?
A. I told him that I did not want to sign it, that we
did not want to be represented by the Food Employer's
Council, that we wanted to be represented by the
Independent Merchants Association.
Q. And what reasons, what, if any reference did
you make to the contract provisions of Food Employ-
er's Council contracts?
A. I believe I explained to Rod at that time that we
do not have the volume nor the location to be covered
under the same contract as the chains did that belong
to the Food Employer's Council, that we were not
coming out as far as profits in the last year and we
could not afford to pay the same rates as the chains.
After C. Fine's conversation with Diamond in June, the
Association became inactive and J. Fine became the
Company's negotiator. He telephoned Grace, and the
agreement was being negotiated when the interim agreement was signed by
C. Fine on August 14.
RETAIL CLERKS UNION , LOCAL 770 1169
parties agreed to meet and negotiate on July 24. At that
scs,,• „ attended by Carr, Grace, and J . Fine, the latter was
informed by the Union that Respondent and the Council
were negotiating "on an around the clock basis . . ." and
that the existing contract between Respondent and the
Council had been extended 30 days, to July 27 . J. Fine
asked Respondent's representatives if it would be possible
to postpone negotiations between Respondent and the
Company until after negotiations between Respondent and
the Council were concluded , and he received a negative
reply. Carr and Grace presented to J. Fine a proposed
contract , and it was agreed that the proposal would be
discussed at a later date . A second session was scheduled
for August 5. That date later was changed by the parties,
and extended to August 13.
C. Fine testified that he talked at the (Olympic) store
on August 11 or 12, with Diamond , and that he asked
Diamond about what he understood were plans for a strike
set for August 14 at 7 a.m. According to C. Fine:
A. He says they are not planning for a strike, they
were simply preparing for one , and I said, "Just
preparing for one? Why did we receive a letter from the
Food & Drug Council saying that they were putting us
the do not patronize list and why were they at the store
and why did they call a strike meeting , a strike vote and
if in fact they were not planning it?"
And he says this was all preparatory.
Diamond was called by Respondent as a witness, but he
was not asked about, nor did he deny or testify concerning,
C. Fine's above-quoted testimony . C. Fine's testimony
therefore is credited.
A. Fine testified that he talked with Graves at the
(Florence) store on August 13 at or about 3 p. m., after
hearing Graves tell an employee to be at the store the
following morning at 7 a.m. to strike . According to A.
Fine:
A. I went up to her and said, "You know, how can
you at this time when my attorney and my brother are
at the Union offices negotiating be telling my employ-
ees to be there to strike the next morning?"
Q. What did Graves say to you?
A. She said, "These are my instructions . Unless the
interim agreement is signed today, there will be a strike
in the morning."
Graves was not called as a witness , nor is there any
evidence in the record upon which to base a doubt relative
to A. Fine's testimony. That testimony therefore is
credited.
Benjamin Wilkes (Wilkes), night manager of the Flor-
ence store and a member of Respondent Union , testified
that, on August 13, Graves "called me over and told me to
inform all the employees that if they didn't sign , they was
going on the strike the next day," and that all employees
were to be in front of the store at 7 o'clock the following
morning.
Wilkes was not cross -examined, nor was his testimony
denied or challenged ; that testimony therefore is credited.
On August 13 J. Fine and C. Fine met with Carr and
Grace from 2 p.m. until approximately 6:45 p .m. Notes
covering most of the meeting were admitted into evidence,
without objection , as Respondent 's Exhibit 2. Those notes
show much jockeying for position and considerable
disagreement, but some things are clear : (a) J. Fine and C.
Fine were concerned and questioned Carr and Grace about
their information relative to a strike being called for the
following morning . The answers given by Carr and Grace
were equivocal . (b) There was discussion , and negotiation,
relative to the language of the Union's proposal . (c) The
next bargaining session was scheduled for August 20.
Based on the foregoing, it is found that the parties
actively were bargaining as of the evening of August 13,
and that they were not at an impasse as of that time.
4. The signing of the interim agreement
Respondent acknowledges that a strike was called for
August 14 , and the record clearly shows that A . Fine and
C. Fine signed the interim agreement only because , in their
view, a strike would be economically disasterous . Although
Respondent argues that the strike was not called in order to
force the Company to sign the interim agreement , the fact
remains that the Company 's signature stopped the strike.
Respondent's argument that it would have accepted
negotiations for a contract as readily as the interim
agreement is not in accord with the record. Negotiations
were not at an impasse , and a third meeting was scheduled
at the time the strike was decided on.
Respondent argues that the Company was not bargain-
ing in good faith because of its desire to await the outcome
of negotiations between Respondent and the Council, and
the Company argues that Respondent agreed to , or should
have agreed to, an extension of time for the expiring
contract , pending negotiations . However , those arguments
are beside the point since it is clear that , as a matter of fact,
the parties were in the midst of continuing negotiations
when the strike was called . If Respondent merely wanted a
contract , as it contends , it would have continued negotiat-
ing. The action asked of, and obtained from , the Federa-
tion clearly was a pressure tactic to force the Company into
signing the interim agreement.
The record does not support Respondent 's contention
that the Company adopted a nonnegotiable stance during
the session of July 24 . That contention conclusively is
disposed of by the fact that a negotiation meeting was held
thereafter , on August 13, and another session was sched-
uled for a week later.
The fact that Respondent's object was to obtain the
Company 's signature on the interim agreement rather than
on a separately negotiated contract further is shown by
Respondent's presentation of an interim agreement for
signature in May and June, and its pressing the subject at
negotiation sessions; by the fact that the interim agreement
was presented after its use had been discontinued and after
the Company had stated it no longer wanted to use such an
agreement ; and by Diamond 's acknowledgment that he
was instructed to set up a picket line if the interim
agreement was not signed.
One of Respondent 's arguments is that the Company
signed the interim agreement voluntarily , and reliance is
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
placed upon a telephone call wherein Icaza asked C. Fine if
the latter was signing under coercion or voluntarily. That is
a most unusual inquiry. Contracting parties assume that
signatures voluntarily are made; if coercion is used, the
coercing party will make an issue of it only if he is
attempting to build an anticipatory defense. So much is
made of this point, with no apparent reason for Icaza to
ask the question other than to build a defense, that the
voluntariness of the Company's signature is negated.
Based on the foregoing, it is found that the Company was
coerced by Respondent into signing an interim agreement,
through threat of strike and institution of economic action,
thereby forcing the Company against its will to designate
the Council as its collective-bargaining representative in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act .4
B. Alleged 8(b)(3) Violation
General Counsel contends that Respondent compelled
the Company involuntarily to agree to a nonmandatory
subject of bargaining, i.e., designation of Council as its
bargaining representative.
Appointment of a collective-bargaining representative is
a nonmandatory subject of bargaining.5 The interim
agreement , quoted and discussed above, clearly makes the
Council the Company's exclusive bargaining representa-
tive. By its action in forcing the Company involuntarily to
sign the interim agreement , Respondent coerced the
Company into agreeing to a nonmandatory subject of
bargaining, in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act .6
C. Alleged 8(b)(3) Violation
General Counsel contends that Respondent coerced the
Company to agree to a future collective-bargaining
agreement to be negotiated by a multiemployer association
to which the Company did not belong.
The nature of the interim agreement, and Respondent's
actions in coercing the Company to sign the agreement, are
discussed above. The Company signed the interim agree-
ment on August 14, thereby binding itself to the agreement
signed by Respondent and the Council on September 11.
As argued by General Counsel, such conduct forced the
Company into a multiemployer association and is as
violative of the Act as forcing expulsion of a member from
such an association.?
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Fine's Food Co. is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All employees employed by Fine's Food Co. at its
two retail food markets, excluding meat department
employees, janitorial and maintenance employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an
appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Respondent represents the above-described employ-
ees within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. By restraining and coercing Fine's Food Co. in the
selection of its representatives for the purpose of collective
bargaining, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(bx 1 XB) of the
Act.
6. By compelling Fine's Food Co. to agree to a
nonmandatory subject of bargaining, and by coercing
Fine's Food Co. to agree to a future collective-bargaining
agreement to be negotiated by a multiemployer association
to which Fine's Food Co. does not belong, Respondent has
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDERS
The Respondent , Retail Clerks Union , Local 770, Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO , its officers,
agents, representatives , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
4 Local 264, Laborer's International Union of North America (J J. Dalton
and Owen Glover, d/b/a D & G Construction Co), 216 NLRB 40 (1975);
Local 44 and Washington State Association of the United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (John R Morris), 195 NLRB 225
(1972); United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof
Workers Association, Local No. 36 (Roofing Contractors Association of
Southern California, Inc), 172 NLRB 2248 ( 1968), Southern California Pipe
Trades District Council No. 16 of the United Association (Aero Plumbing Co),
167 NLRB 1004 (1967); Painters District Council No. 36, AFL-CIO
(Commercial Drywall Constructors, Inc.), 155 NLRB 1013 (1965).
5 Local 264, Laborer's (D & G Construction Co), supra . Southern
California Pipe Trades District Council 16 (Aero Plumbing Co.), supra, 1008.
6 Local 264, Laborers (D & G Construction Co.), supra; United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of
the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 280 (Aero
Plumbing Co.), 184 NLRB 398 (1970); United Slate Workers Local 36, supra,
Painters District Council 36 (Commercial Drywall Constructors, Inc.), supra.
7 Cf. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No 70,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America (California Trucking Association, Inc.), 194 NLRB 674 (1971);
Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' International Association Local No. 2,
AFL-CIO (Arnold M. Hansen), 149 NLRB 1264 (1964).
8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 770 1171
(a) Coercing or restraining Fine's Food Co. in the
selection of its representative for purposes of collective
bargaining.
(b) Refusing to bargain with Fine's Food Co. by (1)
compelling Fine's Food Co. to agree to any nonmandatory
subject of bargaining, (2) coercing Fine's Food Co. to agree
to a future collective-bargaining agreement to be negotiat-
ed by a multiemployer association to which Fine's Food
Co. does not belong.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing Fine's
Food Co. or any other employer in the selection of their
representative for the purpose of collective bargaining.
(d) Applying, enforcing, or giving effect to the interim
agreement signed by Fine's Food Co. with Respondent on
August 14, 1975.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with Fine's Food Co., its
officers, agents, and representatives designated for that
purpose, with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of its employees in the unit found appropriate
for bargaining purposes, and, if agreement is reached,
embody the terms in a signed contract.
(b) Notify Fine's Food Co., in writing, that it will not
insist upon any nonmandatory collective-bargaining provi-
sion objected to by Fine's Food Co., or agreement by
Fine's Food Co. to a future collective-bargaining contract
to be negotiated by a multiemployer association to which
Fine's Food Co. does not belong.
(c) Post at Respondent's offices and places of business,
including meeting places for union members, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix,"9 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 31, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to members customarily are
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Forthwith, mail copies of said signed notice to the
aforesaid Regional Director, for posting by Fine's Food
Co., if they so agree, at places where they customarily post
notices to individuals in their employ.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
9 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT coerce or restrain Fine's Food Co. in
the selection of its representative for purposes of
collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Fine's Food Co.
by (1) compelling Fine's Food Co. to agree to any
nonmandatory subject of bargaining, or (2) coercing
Fine's Food Co. to agree to a future collective-bargain-
ing agreement to be negotiated by a multiemployer
association to which Fine's Food Co. does not belong.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
Fine's Food Co., or any other employer, in the selection
of their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining.
WE WILL NOT apply, enforce, or give effect to the
interim agreement signed by Fine's Food Co. with us,
on August 14, 1975.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Fine's Food
Co., its officers, agents , and representatives designated
for that purpose, with respect to wages , hours, and
other terms and conditions of its employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All employees employed by Fine's Food Co. at its
two retail food markets , excluding meat depart-
ment employees, janitorial and maintenance
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL notify Fine's Food Co., in writing, that we
will not insist on any nonmandatory collective-bargain-
ing provision objected to by Fine's Food Co., or
agreement by Fine's Food Co. to a future collective-
bargaining contract to be negotiated by a multiemploy-
er association of which Fine's Food Co. is not a
member.
RETAIL CLERKS UNION,
LOCAL 770, RETAIL CLERKS
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO