Safeway Stores

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 193 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

SAFEWAY STORES
Safeway Stores, Inc. and United Food and Commer-
cial Workers Union, Local 73R, affiliated with
United Food and Commercial Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 16-CA-
10399
30 April 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 21 September and 28 October 1983 Adminis-
trative Law Judge Sidney J. Barban issued respec-
tively the attached decision and amendment to de-
cision.l The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief
in support of the judge's decision.
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 and to adopt the recommended
Order.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Safeway
Stores, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order.
The amendment corrects an inadvertent error made in the Decision
with respect to the description of the stipulated units appropriate for bar-
gaiing.
2 The Respondent did not except to the judge's finding that its refusal
to supply the Union certain information violated Sec. 8(aX5) of the Act.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SIDNEY J. BARBAN, Administrative Law Judge. This
matter was submitted to the Division of Judges on a stip-
ulated record, dated April 29, 1983, and was assigned to
me by an order dated May 3, 1983, for the issuance of a
decision and other appropriate action.' The complaint in
this matter, which was issued on May 19, 1982 (all dates
hereinafter are in 1982, unless otherwise noted), based on
a charge filed on April 15 by United Food and Commer-
cial Workers Union, Local 73R, affiliated with United
Food and Commercial Workers International Union,
' The formal papers in this cae show that the parties originally filed a
stipulation of facts directly with the Board, on October 12, 1982, for de-
cision of the matter, and that the Board, on February 3, 1983, remanded
the matters to the Regional Director for further action.
270 NLRB No. 33
AFL-CIO-CLC (herein the Union), alleges that
Safeway Stores, Inc. violated Section 8(aX5) and (1) of
the National Labor Relations Act (herein the Act) by (a)
"unilaterally implement[ing] an employee evaluation
system ... without prior notice to the Union and with-
out having afforded the Union an opportunity to negoti-
ate and bargain as the exclusive representative of the Re-
spondent's employees [in an appropriate unit]" with re-
spect to such action; and by (b) refusing the Union's re-
quest for information concerning several aspects of such
action. The Respondent's answer denies the unfair labor
practices alleged, but admits that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of the Act and its status as
an exclusive representative of the Respondent's employ-
ees in an appropriate unit.
On the entire record in this case, and after due consid-
eration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the
Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
The Respondent, which is incorporated in the State of
Maryland, operates a chain of retail food stores in vari-
ous States of the United States, including stores in the
area of Tulsa, Oklahoma, which the parties refer to as
the Tulsa Division, with an office and place of business
at Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. The Respondent's principal
office is located at Oakland, California.
The Respondent, during a recent annual period, in the
course and conduct of its business operations at its Okla-
homa retail stores, purchased and received at such stores
food products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
suppliers located outside the State of Oklahoma, and
during the same period of time received gross revenues
in excess of $500,000.
The Respondent admits, and I find that the Respond-
ent is now, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
11. THE ISSUES
In January 1982, the Respondent instituted a written
system of annual job evaluations of food clerk employees
in the appropriate units represented by the Union, unilat-
erally and without affording the Union an opportunity to
bargain with respect to the institution or application of
this procedure. As explained in more detail hereinafter,
the Union requested information concerning this new
system of work evaluation, and copies of the evaluations
made thereunder. The Respondent has declined to fur-
nish these materials to the Union. The General Counsel
contends that by such acts and conduct the Respondent
has violated the Act.
The Respondent contends that the institution of the
employee evaluation system did not constitute a change
in conditions of employment requiring the Respondent to
bargain with the Union and, that being so, the Respond-
ent was also not under any obligation to supply the
Union with the information sought, arguing that the
Union thus had not and cannot demonstrate the rel-
193
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evance of the requested information. (See R. Br., pp. 1-
2.)
III. UNION REPRESENTATION
It is stipulated and I find that during the times material
herein the Union has been the duly designated exclusive
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employment of
all regular full-time and regular part-time employees of
the Respondent, excluding meat department employees,
managers, assistant managers, watchmen, guards and all
supervisors as defined in the Act, in each appropriate
unit set forth below:
1. Such employees employed in stores located in
Tulsa, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, McAlester and Stillwater,
Oklahoma, constitute a separate unit.
2. Such employees employed in stores located at
Claremore, Pryor, Tahledquah, Durant, Owasso, Hugo,
Bristow, Okemah and Idabel, Oklahoma, constitute a
separate unit.
3. Such employees employed in stores located in
Bartlesville, Henryetta, Muskogee, Broken Arrow, Wag-
oner, Okmulgee, Vinita, Sallisaw, Pawhuska, and Cleve-
land, Oklahoma, constitute separate bargaining units in
each location.
At the times material, collective-bargaining agreements
were in effect covering each of the above units, which
contracts were substantially identical with the exception
of effective dates. 2
IV. THE FACTS
A. Employee Job Evaluations
Late in 1981, the Respondent's corporate headquarters
began devising a formal written employee evaluation
system to be used in all 20 divisions of the Respondent's
operations. About January 11, the Respondent directed
its Tulsa Division to institute such an employee evalua-
tion system utilizing a form entitled "Safeway Training
and Development Appraisal."s
Each food clerk in the appropraite units is to be evalu-
ated annually during the month in which the anniversary
of the employee's hire falls. After the completed form is
shown to the employee, the form is forwarded to the dis-
trict office where it is reviewed by the district manager
and then becomes part of the employee's personnel file.
These findings are derived from the stipulation of the parties. I note,
however, that the complaint seems to refer only to the unit set forth as
number 1, above. I assume that, nevertheless, the parties, by their stipula-
tion, agree that this matter concerns the employees in all of the units set
forth.
s Although the form was never discussed with or furnished to the
Union, a copy was included in the record in this case. The form provides
for grading food clerks in the various units along a sliding scale from
"unacceptable" to "excellent" in the following areas: I. customer rela-
tions, 2. personal appearance, 3. employee interaction, 4. attendance, 5.
operation of register, 6. monetary transactions, 7. checkstand functions
(scaling, baskarts, forms, procedures), 8. cutting, marking, and pricing, 9.
stocking, 10. ordering, II. merchandising, 12. bagging, 13. baskart and
bottle/can control, 14. store/work area cleaning, and 15. other. Further
explanations of the functions included in each area are set forth in the
form. Provision is made in the document for comment by the employee,
and comment and recommendations by the supervisor.
A number of employees in the Tulsa Division have been
evaluated using this appraisal form.
According to the stipulation of the parties, "It is an-
ticipated that appraisals will be used by [the Respondent]
for general personnel management purposes. The pri-
mary purpose of the form is to provide feedback to the
employees on their job performance. It is envisioned that
the form may be considered by [the Respondent's] offi-
cials when selecting an employee for promotions, trans-
fers, and other employee personnel actions." 4
The affidavit of Bruce Scott, the Respondent's em-
ployee and public affairs manager and an admitted agent
of the Respondent, which is included in the record by
stipulation, explains that "[t]he purpose of the current
evaluation forms [sic] is to insure regular performance
reviews covering the same behaviors or characteristics,
using the same scale of evaluation. This insures the same
criteria are used for each employee."
The stipulation of the parties states that "[p]rior to the
implementation of the Safeway Retail Clerk Training and
Development Appraisal, the Tulsa Division of [the Re-
spondent] had no formal evaluation system. Informal
evaluations of employee performances were made and
transmitted orally as needed." Scott's affidavit expands
on this, saying, "Prior to the use of the new performance
evaluation forms, we had no formal or written appraisal
process. The only means of informing an employee of
their [sic] performance came through inference from the
casual comments made by the store manager. Occasional-
ly, something done very well or very poorly might result
in a specific discussion (counseling) with the employees.
Here again, no documentation or schedule for these per-
formance reviews were kept in a personnel file. Howev-
er, corrective actions concerning a specific incident
would be kept therein. Prior to the existence of the eval-
uation forms, the Store Managers were responsible for
evaluating employees' performance to ensure compliance
with company policies and guidelines relating to person-
nel management. This evaluation was rarely conveyed in
any specific format or defined by characteristic. It did
not take place on a scheduled basis nor were characteris-
tics that are contained in the new form evaluated at the
same time or at all with respect to each employee. The
evaluation was only the perception of the Store Manager
and was not documented in any way."
B. The Union's Requestsfor information-The
Respondent's Responses
The Union, in a letter to the Respondent dated March
23, complaining that the Respondent's employee per-
formance review system was a unilateral change in
working conditions without prior notice to or bargaining
with the Union, requested that the Respondent meet and
bargain concerning the "terms, conditions and effects of
this change," and that the new procedure be discontin-
' The Respondent asserts that the form "is intended primarily as a
training device." (Br., p. 5.) However, the fact the the employee's job
evaluation is made only annually would seem to diminish its value for
that purpose. And the fact that the form is used to transmit a recommen-
dation to the district manager concerning the employee's work perform-
ance also indicates a broader "personnel management purpose."
194
SAFEWAY STORES
ued during bargaining and that the following information
be furnished to the Union: (1) "copies of the instructions,
memoranda, manuals, forms, and other written materials
issued to management which explain, implement, and fa-
cilitate the practice of Employee Performance Reviews
issued before on, and after January 1, 1982"; (2) "Copies
of any and all instructions, memoranda, manuals, forms,
and other written materials issued to management which
explained, implemented, and facilitated any system of
personnel evaluation utilized by [the Respondent] prior
to the institution of Employee Performance Reviews on
or about January 1, 1982"; (3) "The names, store assign-
ments, and classifications of any and all members of
Local 73R who have been reviewed under the Employee
Performance Review system since January 1, 1982"; (4)
"Copies of any and all written material retained to
record the results of employee performance reviews per-
formed on the individuals identified in the response to
Item 3 above"; and (5) "A list of the other Divisions in
the Safeway system where employee performance re-
views identical to the one implemented on or about Jan-
uary 1, 1982, in the Tulsa Division, has been effected, if
any."
In connection with request number 4 above, asking for
copies of work appraisals made of unit employees, it is
noted that the collective-bargaining agreement between
the Respondent and the Union which is contained in the
record, provides, in pertinent part:
ARTICLE 23 - CORRECTIVE ACTION
RECORDS
23.1 Corrective action records and/or similar no-
tices given to employees for any reason shall state
the facts on each individual notice in clear and un-
derstandable terms. The notice shall also state the
remedy expected of the employee.
23.2 A copy of the notice shall be sent to the union
within seven (7) days of issue.
The Respondent answered the Union's requests by let-
ters dated March 30 and April 15, stating that the
Union's requests were under review. The Respondent
has not agreed to bargain concerning these matters, and
has not given the Union the information requested, nor
has it given the Union a reason for its failure to bargain
or provide the information.
V. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Alleged Unilateral Action
The Respondent's new, written, detailed system of
evaluating employee job performance is a term or condi-
tional of employment which was adopted and put into
effect unilaterally, without notice to or bargaining with
the Union representing the employees affected. Ordinari-
ly such unilateral conduct would violate Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act. See, e.g., Amsterdam Printing d Litho Corp.,
223 NLRB 370 (1976). However, the Board has held that
an employer does not violate the Act, where, in unilater-
ally implementing a formal employee job evaluation
system, the employer "was simply effectuating a long-ex-
isting policy respecting a term of employment." North
Kingstown Nursing Care Center, 244 NLRB 54, 66 (1979).
According to a number of cases, the issue to be resolved
is whether the new rule, policy, or practice unilaterally
instituted by the employer, without affording the union
an opportunity to bargain thereon is "a material, substan-
tial, or significant change" from the prior practice. See,
e.g., Rust Craft Broadcasting of New York, 225 NLRB
327 (1976) (substitution of timeclocks for manual nota-
tions to record time at work held no violation); Trading
Port, 224 NLRB 980 (1976) (unilateral imposition of job
evaluation system not shown to differ materially from
procedure in effect previously held no violation); Cle-
ments Wire & Mfg. Co., 257 NLRB 1058 (1981) (posting
notices of job vacancies in place of past practice of
orally soliciting job applicants held no violation); Wabash
Transformer Corp., 215 NLRB 546 (1974) (imposition of
discharge for violation of long-standing rule held no vio-
lation inasmuch as discharge was a sanction inherent in
the rule).
The Respondent here contends that the new form and
procedure in this case is not a material change from past
practice and thus the Respondent's unilateral implemen-
tation of the new form and procedure should not be held
to violate the Act. Specifically, the Respondent argues
(Br., p. 6): "It is hard to imagine a retail store in which
the manager does not sit down with his clerks and talk
about customer relations, merchandising, and other mat-
ters covered by the appraisal form.... The 'new' eval-
uation system is not materially different, just more effi-
cient. The implementation of the [new form] is within
the broad area of management discretion to independently
fashion innovation to make the business more efficient."
This last argument is apparently derived from language
of the administrative law judge in Trading Port, supra.
However, this language is so broad that taken out of the
factual context in that case, it would serve to set up an
entirely new rule-that of efficiency-to justify employ-
er unilateral changes in working conditions. To the con-
trary, as has been noted, where it is claimed that the new
procedure is derived from past practice, the question is
whether the new procedure is materially, substantially,
or significantly different from the previous practice, not
whether it is efficient. (Thus an employer might find it
more efficient to change any number of working condi-
tions-e.g., wages, benefits, rest periods, etc.-but this
alone would not justify such unilateral action.)
Though the Respondent argues, as set out above, that
the store managers must have had a practice of sitting
down with employees and evaluating their performance
prior to 1982, there is little in the record to support this
position. There was certainly no prior formal system of
evaluation. It is stated that informal evaluations were
made and transmitted orally "as needed." Indeed, it is
admitted that, except for occasional special circum-
stances, employees were informed of their job perform-
ance only "through inference from casual comments
made by the Store Manager." Nevertheless, according to
Scott's affidavit, the store managers were "responsible
for evaluating employees' performance to ensure compli-
ance with company policy and guidelines relating to per-
sonnel management." There is, however, no indication in
195
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the record as to what the Respondent's prior policies and
guidelines might be, other than that they were casual and
conveyed to the employees by inference. In addition to
the fact that no formal scheduled reviews of employee
performance were held prior to January 1982, it appears
that documentation of employee performance was placed
in an employee's personnel file only on rare occasions, in
special circumstances.
Based on these facts it cannot be found that prior to
1982 the Respondent had a fixed policy or practice of
evaluating employee work performance. In any event, it
is clear that the policy and practice of work evaluation
adopted in 1982 constituted a marked change over the
prior procedure. Instead of being unstructured and casual
as it was previously, the management relationship with
the food clerks became highly detailed and structured.
Evaluations of employee work habits and performances
were scheduled on a regular, recurring basis and became
part of the employee's permanent personnel file where it
might be used to affect the employee's tenure of employ-
ment and advancement with the Respondent.
Based on the above, and the record as a whole, I find
that the "Safeway Training and Development Apprisal"
put into effect in the Respondent's Tulsa Division in Jan-
uary 1982 constituted a material, substantial, and signifi-
cant change in the working conditions of employees in
that division represented by the Union, and that the Re-
spondent, by adopting and implementing this new policy
and practice without giving the Union prior notice and a
reasonable opportunity to bargain concerning this
change, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
B. Alleged Refusal to Supply Information
The Union, by letter dated March 23, requested the
Respondent to furnish the Union, essentially, with the
following information: information with respect to the
Respondent's system of evaluating work performance of
unit employees prior to January 1982; information con-
cerning the system of employee work performance eval-
uation installed by the Respondent unilaterally in Janu-
ary 1982; the names of unit employees and copies of job
performance evaluations made of employees under the
new system of evaluation instituted in January 1982; and
a list of the Respondent's divisions in addition to the
Tulsa Division where a system of employee evaluation
has been instituted similar to that put into effect in Janu-
ary 1982 in the Tulsa Division. None of this material has
been supplied to the Union pursuant to the Union's re-
quests. (Of course, a copy of the evaluation form was
submitted by the Respondent as an exhibit in this matter.
I do not consider this to be in compliance with the
Union's request.)
It is well established that a labor organization which
has an obligation under the Act to represent employees
in a bargaining unit with respect to wages, hours, and
working conditions, including collective bargaining and
administration of bargaining agreements, is entitled, by
operation of the statute, on appropriate request, to such
information as may be relevant to the proper perform-
ance of that duty. See, e.g., NLRB v. Acme Industrial
Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967); Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. NLRB,
347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965). Thus, in Acme Industrial,
supra, the Supreme Court held that in requiring an em-
ployer to furnish information to a union, the Board acts
"only upon the probability that the desired information
was relevant, and that it would be of use ... in carrying
out [the union's] statutory duties and responsibilities."
385 U.S. at 437. Information concerning terms and con-
ditions of employment of represented employees in the
appropriate unit has been held to be presumptively rele-
vant to the union's representative function, but requests
for information about employees not represented by the
union must be specifically shown to be relevant. Curtiss-
Wright, supra.
The Respondent argues, however, in effect, that in
order to justify the Union's requests for information here,
the Respondent's actions must be shown to have a more
immediate impact on terms and conditions of employ-
ment than occurred in this case. The Respondent asserts:
"The effect [on the terms and conditions of employment]
must be directed. .... In general, some overt act of the
employer which directly affects employees is necessary
before information on subjects outside the usual bargain-
ing areas must be disclosed." (Br., p. 8.) The Respondent
suggests that more than "an 'abstract' or 'potential rel-
evance' based on mere suspicion and surmise" is re-
quired. (Br., p. 10.)
These arguments misapprehend the situation in this
case. It has previously been found that the Respondent is
obligated under the Act to negotiate with the Union con-
cerning the adoption and implementation of its new em-
ployee job evaluation system with respect to employees
represented by the Union, and the Union has requested
such bargaining. The Union is therefore entitled to infor-
mation from the Respondent reasonably relevant and
useful to such negotiations. Such information would cer-
tainly include the details of the new system, put into
effect in January 1982, the forms to be used and instruc-
tions to supervision as to the implementation of the new
system, as requested by the Union. The Union's further
request for similar information as to the methods of job
evaluation (if any) in use prior to January 1982 presents a
closer case, but the Supreme Court in Acme, supra, ad-
vises that a liberal "discovery type" standard be used
(385 U.S. at 437), so that the bargaining representative
shall not be required to perform its statutory duteis as if
engaged in a game of "blind man's bluff." (385 U.S. at
438.) Obviously, knowledge of the details of the Re-
spondent's prior practice would be relevant and signifi-
cant in negotiations about changes in that practice.
Similarly, the Respondent's actual implementation of
the new system is reasonably relevant to negotiations
concerning the system. It also appears that the Respond-
ent's failure to provide the Union with copies of the per-
formance evaluations made and the names of the employ-
ees evaluated arguably violated article 23 of the bargain-
ing agreement in effect, and copies of these evaluations
thus would be relevant to the Union's responsibility to
administer that agreement.
However, the Union's request for a list of the Re-
spondent's divisions (other than the Tulsa Division) in
which the Respondent is utilizing the new job evaluation
system is a request for information concerning the Re-
196
SAFEWAY STORES
spondent's activities outside the units represented by the
Union. In the absence of a showing of a special need for
such information, the Union is not entitled to require that
the Respondent furnish such a list.
On the basis of the above and on the entire record, I
find that the Respondent, by failing and refusing, on re-
quest, to provide the Union with the information request-
ed in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Union's letter to
the Respondent of March 23, 1982, violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The bargaining units sets forth below are units ap-
propriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
(a) All regular full-time and regular part-time em-
ployees of Respondent, excluding meat department
employees, managers, assistant manager, watchmen,
guards and all supervisors as defined in the Act em-
ployed in stores located in Tulsa, Sand Springs, Sa-
pulpa, McAlester and Stillwater, Oklahoma, consti-
tute a separate appropriate unit.
(b) All regular full-time and regular part-time em-
ployees of Respondent, excluding meat department
employees, managers, assistant managers, watch-
men, guards and all supervisors employed in stores
located in Claremore, Pryor, Tahlequah, Durant,
Owasso, Hugo, Bristow, Okeman and Idabel, Okla-
homa, constitute a separate appropriate unit.
(c) All regular full-time and regular part-time em-
ployees of Respondent, excluding meat department
employees, managers, assistant managers, watch-
men, guards and all supervisors employed in stores
located in Bartlesville, Henryetta, Muskogee,
Broken Arrow, Wagoner, Okmulgee, Vinita, Salli-
saw, Pawhuska, and Cleveland, Oklahoma, consti-
tute separate bargaining units in each location.
4. At all times material to this proceeding, the Union
was and continues to be the exclusive representative of
the employees in the aforesaid units for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
5. The Respondent, by unilaterally adopting and im-
plementing a new system of employee job evaluation, in
January 1982, for employees in the aforesaid appropriate
units without notification to and affording the Union an
opportunity to bargain thereon, and by failing and refus-
ing to give the Union the information and materials re-
quested in the Union's letter dated March 23, 1982
(except for item numbered 5 therein), with respect to the
Respondent's new system of employee job evaluation,
violated Section 8 (aX5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent violated the
Act by unilaterally adopting and implementing a new
system of evaluating employee job performance without
affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with re-
spect to that system, and by failing and refusing to pro-
vide the Union with certain information and data, on re-
quest, to enable the Union to fulfill its obligation to rep-
resent the employees involved, it will be recommended
that the Respondent shall cease and desist from such
unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
In particular, it will be recommended that the Re-
spondent provide the Union with certain information and
materials requested by the Union; that the Respondent
further shall bargain in good faith with the Union on re-
quest with respect to the adoption and implementation of
any system of evaluating the job performance of employ-
ees in an appropriate unit represented by the Union prior
to putting such evaluation system into effect; further,
that the Respondent, on request by the Union, shall sus-
pend the implementation of any such evaluation system
now in effect until the occurrence of any one of the fol-
lowing conditions: (1) failure of the Union to request
bargaining with respect to such evaluation system within
45 days from the date of this Order, or (2) agreement be-
tween the Respondent and the Union with respect to the
adoption and implementation of such evaluation system,
reduced to writing and executed by both parties, or (3)
the Respondent and the Union have bargained in good
faith to a genuine impasse with respect to the adoption
and implementation of such evaluation system. It will be
further recommended that the Respondent, if requested
by the Union, shall withdraw, annual, and expunge from
its records any of the job performance evaluations made
and recorded since January 1, 1982.
On the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of
law and on the entire record, I issue the following rec-
ommended 5
ORDER
The Respondent, Safeway Stores, Inc., Broken Arrow,
Oklahoma, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively in good
faith with United Food and Commercial Workers Union
73R, affiliated with United Food and Commercial Work-
ers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, the Union
herein, or any other labor organization which is the ex-
clusive bargaining agent of its employees in an appropri-
ate bargaining unit by:
(1) Unilaterally altering terms and conditions of em-
ployment of unit employees without consulting with the
Union or any other representative of its employees in
' 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.
197
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such unit and affording such representative a reasonable
opportunity to bargain on any such proposed changes.
(2) By refusing or failing to furnish to the Union or its
agents, on request, the information and materials set
forth in the Union's letter to the Respondent dated
March 23, 1982, including copies of the instructions,
memoranda, manuals, forms, and other written materials
issued to the Respondent's management which explain,
implement, and facilitate the practice of employee per-
formance reviews issued before on and after January 1,
1982; copies of any and all instructions, memoranda,
manuals, forms, and other written materials issued to the
Respondent's management, which explained, implement-
ed, and facilitated any system of personnel evaluation uti-
lized by the Respondent prior to the institution of em-
ployee performance reviews on or about January 1982;
copies of any and all written material retained to record
the resulsts of employee performance reviews performed
on employees in an appropriate unit represented by the
Union, together with the names, store assignments, and
classifications of employees so reviewed, but not includ-
ing the information requested an item numbered 5 in that
letter.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
protected by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
(a) Give the Union the following information and ma-
terials described in paragraph l(aX2) set forth above in
this Order.
(b) Bargain in good faith with the Union, on request,
with respect to the adopting and implementation of the
system of employee job evaluation which the Respond-
ent put into effect in January 1982, and if an agreement
is reached, execute a document setting forth the agree-
ment.
(c) If requested by the Union, suspend the implementa-
tion of the system of employee job evaluation which the
Respondent put into effect in January 1982, subject to
the conditions set forth in the section of this decision en-
titled "The Remedy."
(d) If requested by the Union, withdraw and expunge
from its records any of the job performance evaluations
made and recorded since January 1, 1982, in any appro-
priate unit of employees represented by the Union.
(e) Post at its stores and other operations in its Tulsa,
Oklahoma Division copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being
signed by the Respondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspic-
' 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
uous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT put into effect a system of job perform-
ance evaluation for employees represented by United
Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 73R, affli-
ated with United Food and Commercial Workers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, in the appropriate units
set forth below, without first consulting with the Union
and giving the Union a reasonable opportunity to bargain
on the subject.
WE WILL, if requested by the Union, suspend the
system of employee job performance evaluations put into
effect in January 1982, pending negotiations with the
Union.
WE WILL, if requested by the Union, withdraw and ex-
punge from out records any employee job performance
evaluation made of an employee represented by the
Union since January 1, 1982.
WE WILL, as directed by the National Labor Relations
Board, give to the Union the information and material
concerning the Company's employee job performance
system put into effect in January 1982, requested by the
Union. The appropriate units are:
All regular full-time and regular part-time em-
ployees of the Company, excluding meat depart-
ment employees, managers, assistant managers,
watchmen, guards and all supervisors employed in
the following stores:
(a) Tulsa, San Springs, Sapulpa, McAlester,
and Stillwater, Oklahoma, constitute one separate
appropriate unit.
(b) Claremore, Pryor, Tahlequah, Durant,
Owasso, Hugo, Bristow, Okemah, and Idabel,
Oklahoma, constitute one separate appropriate
unit.
(c) Bartlesville, Henryetta, Muskogee, Broken
Arrow, Wagoner, Okmulgee, Vinita, Sallisaw,
Pawhuska, and Cleveland, Oklahoma, constitute
separate bargaining units in each location.
SAFEWAY STORES, INC.
198