Safeway Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 1323 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

SAFEWAY STORES, INC.
Safeway Stores, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union, Local
No. 73, United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO.' Case 16-CA-
8386
September 30, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELL.O
On February 26, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Gerald A. Wacknov issued the attached De-
cision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Charg-
ing Party filed a response to exceptions filed to the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein.
The Administrative Law Judge found, and we
agree, that the information requested by the Union
here is virtually identical to and patterned after the
request for information made in Westinghouse Elec-
tric Corporation, 239 NLRB 106 (1978). In adopting
the Administrative Law Judge's Decision here, we
find it necessary to comment only on the informa-
tion dealing with (1) charges and complaints and
(2) handicapped persons.
In Westinghouse, the Board found that the rel-
evance of charges and complaints is not plainly ob-
vious and held that a union would be required to
specify the use of such information. Here, the
Union indicated to Respondent, in a letter dated
November 15, 1978, that it needed the information
in order to ascertain whether the applicable dis-
crimination provision of the parties' contract 2 was
being complied with in a number of pending mat-
ters involving the statutes and orders described in
its request. Thus, we find no merit in Respondent's
claim that the Union here has failed to satisfy the
requirement set forth in Westinghouse, insofar as it
i The name of the Charging Party, formerly Retail Clerks Union.
Local No 73. Retail Clerks International Association, is amended to re-
flect the change resulting from the merging of Retail Clerks International
Union and Amalgamated Meatcutters and utchers Workmen of North
America on June 7, 1979
2 Art. 26.1 of the current collective-bargaining agreement is entitled
"No discrimination," and provides that Respondent "shall not discrimi-
nate [against] any employee on account of race, sex. creed, nationality.
color, religion, age, or on account of union affiliation or on account of
any legitimate union actilty"
252 NLRB No. 184
relates directly to its representation of unit employ-
ees.
In excepting to the Administrative Law Judge's
recommended Order dealing with information on
handicapped persons, Respondent relies on several
grounds. It contends that the Board has never held
such information to be presumptively relevant-
and that the Union here failed to demonstrate that
such information is relevant-to the administration
of the collective-bargaining agreement. In addition,
Respondent asserts that it does not have and is
unable to furnish the information requested dealing
with handicapped persons. We find no merit in Re-
spondent's exceptions.
The standard for determining the relevance of
information sought by a bargaining agent was re-
stated in Westinghouse as follows:
It is well established that a labor organiza-
tion, obligated to represent employees in a bar-
gaining unit with respect to their terms and
conditions of employment, is entitled to such
information from the employer as may be rel-
evant and reasonably necessary to the proper
execution of that obligation. 6 The right to
such information exists not only for the pur-
pose of negotiating a contract, but also for the
purpose of administering a collective-bargain-
ing agreement. The employer's obligation, in
either instance, is predicated upon the need of
the union for such information in order to pro-
vide intelligent representation of the employ-
ees.7 The test of the union's need for such in-
formation is simply a showing of "probability
that the desired information was relevant, and
that it would be of use to the union in carrying
out its statutory duties and responsibilities."8
The union need not demonstrate that the infor-
mation sought is certainly relevant or clearly
dispositive of the basic negotiating or arbitra-
tion issues between the parties. The fact that
the information is of probable or potential rel-
evance is sufficient to give rise to an obligation
on the part of an employer to provide it.9 The
appropriate standard in determining the poten-
tial relevance of information sought in aid of
the bargaining agent's responsibility is a liberal
discovery-type standard. o
6 Vertol Division, Boeing Company, 182 NLRB 421 (1970);
N.L.R.B Whitin Machine Works. 217 F 2d 593 (4th Cir 1954),
cert denied 349 U.S. 905 (1955).
7 I1'? W oworth Co., 109 NLRB 196, 197 (1954). enfd 352
US. 938 (1956).
. LRB. v .Acme Industrial Co.. 385 U.S 432, 437 (1967)
9 The Brookln Union Gas Company, 220 NLIRB 189 (1975)
0 .4cme Indusrrial Co., supra
1323
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Applying this standard here, we find that infor-
mation relating to handicapped employees in the
bargaining unit is presumptively relevant. By the
very nature of the collective-bargaining representa-
tives' status as representative of all unit employees,
it has a legal obligation to represent handicapped
employees fairly and with due diligence. The
Union's duty of fair representation requires it. It
therefore follows that a union needs the informa-
tion requested by the Union here in order to make
contract proposals and to administer the contract
so as to protect the interests of all unit employees,
including handicapped employees.
With respect to Respondent's contentions that it
is unable to furnish the requested information deal-
ing with handicapped persons, the general principle
stated in Food Employers Council, Inc., et al., 197
NLRB 651 (1972), are applicable. There, the Board
stated at 651:
If there are substantial costs involved in com-
piling the information in the precise form and
at the intervals requested by the Union, the
parties must bargain in good faith as to who
shall bear such costs, and, if no agreement can
be reached, the Union is entitled in any event
to access to records from which it can reason-
ably compile the information. If any dispute
arises in applying these guidelines, it will be
treated in the compliance stage of the proceed-
ing.
In short, Respondent's obligation is to provide
the information it has available, to compile it, or to
give the Union access to the records from which it
can reasonably compile the information. And, if the
production of the information ordered involved
substantial costs, the parties may bargain over the
allocation of these costs. Westinghouse Electric Cor-
poration, supra.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Safeway Stores, Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take that
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a):
"(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Retail
Clerks Union, Local No. 73, United Food and
Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, as representative of all regular full-time and
regular part-time employees working at stores lo-
cated in Tulsa, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, McAlester,
and Stillwater, Oklahoma, exclusive of meat de-
partment employees, managers, assistant managers,
watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act, by refusing to furnish the Union with in-
formation relevant to possible race and sex discrim-
ination or the advancement of equal opportunities
for female, handicapped, and minority group em-
ployees in said unit."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Furnish the Union with the following infor-
mation for the bargaining unit described in para-
graph (a):
"(1) The number of male and female employees
and blacks, handicapped, Indians, and Spanish-sur-
named employees in each classification for all units
covered by a contract between Safeway Stores,
Inc., and this Local Union.
"(2) The hourly wage rate for each such employ-
ee.
"(3) The number of employees by race, sex,
handicap, and Spanish surname, who have less than
1 year's seniority, 1-2 years' seniority, 3-4 years'
seniority, 5-9 years' seniority, 10-19 years' senior-
ity, and 20 or more years' seniority.
"(4) The number of persons hired in each classi-
fication during the 12-month period immediately
preceding the effective date of the information cov-
ered in items 1 through 3 above, with a breakdown
as to sex, race, handicap, and Spanish surname,
showing the sex of all black and Spanish-surnamed
persons.
"(5) The number of promotion or upgrades for
the same 12-month period, broken down by race,
sex, and Spanish-surnamed persons showing the job
level of each upgraded employee prior to and sub-
sequent to each such upgrade and the race, sex,
and whether Spanish surnamed for each of these
upgraded employees.
"(6) A list of all complaints and charges filed
against Safeway Stores, Inc., Tulsa Division, under
the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246, and state fair
employment practices laws and copies of each
complaint or charge relating to employees in bar-
gaining units covered by this Local Union, along
with any related documents pertaining to the status
of such charges, provided that the names of the
charging parties may be deleted therefrom.
"(7) Copies of the most recent work force analy-
ses filed under Executive Order 11246 and Revised
Order 4 of the Office of Federal Contract Compli-
ance Programs for or covering each store or loca-
tion covered by this local Union."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Law Judge.
1324
SAFEWAY STORES, INC.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 73,
United Food and Commercial Workers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, as representative
of the employees in the following unit:
All regular full-time and regular part-time
employees working at stores located in
Tulsa, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, McAlester,
and Stillwater, Oklahoma, exclusive of meat
department employees, managers, assistant
managers, watchmen, guards, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union
with information relevant to possible race or
sex discrimination or the advancement of equal
opportunities for female, handicapped, and mi-
nority group employees in said unit.
WE WIt.L. furnish such information to the
Union in order to enable it to evaluate compli-
ance with the "No Discrimination" clause in
the contract, and for other legitimate purposes.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
refuse to bargain collectively with the Union,
or interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended.
SAFEWAY STORES, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD A. WACKNOV, Administrative Law Judge:
Pursuant to notice, a hearing with respect to this matter
was held before me in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on September
20, 1979.1 The charge was filed by Retail Clerks Union,
Local No. 73, Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO (herein called the Union), on March 16.
Thereafter, on April 10, a complaint was issued by the
Acting Regional Director for Region 16 of the National
Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board) alleging
I All dates or time periods herein are within 1979 unless slated to he
otherwise
a violation by Safeway Stores, Inc. (herein called Re-
spondent), of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended (herein called the Act). Respon-
dent's answer to the complaint, duly filed, denies the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
The parties were afforded a full opportunity to be
heard, to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce relevant evidence. Since the close of the
hearing briefs have been received from the General
Counsel, counsel for Respondent, and counsel for the
Union.
Upon the entire record and based upon my observa-
tion of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs sub-
mitted, I make the following:
FINDINGS OFi FAC
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Maryland corporation engaged in the
operation of a chain of retail food stores, with stores lo-
cated in the Tulsa, Oklahoma, area. In the course and
conduct of its Oklahoma business operations, Respondent
annually purchases and receives food products valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside
the State of Oklahoma, and has annual gross revenues in
excess of $500,000. It is admitted, and I find, that Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOL.VID
It is admitted, and I find, that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICE
A. The Issue
The principal issue raised by the pleadings is whether
Respondent violated and continues to violate Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to furnish the
Union with certain requested information concerning Re-
spondent's employment of minority employees in the col-
lective-bargaining unit represented by the Union.
B. The Facts
Respondent and Union have maintained a collective-
bargaining relationship over a substantial time, and are
currently parties to a multistore collective-bargaining
agreement extending from April 16, 1978, through April
18, 1981 covering some 1500 unit employees. 2
On November 10, 1978, Charles M. Nobles, president
of the Union, sent the following letter to Gary Espy, Re-
spondent's public relations manager, Tulsa Division:
2 The unit is described as follos:
All regular full-time and regular part-time employees. orking for
Respondent in stores located in Tulsa Sand Springs, Sapulpa, McA-
lester, and Stillwater, Oklahoma, exclusive of meat department em-
ployee,, managers, assistant managers, watchmen, guards, and all su-
pervisors as defined in the Act
1325
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In order that we may insure that Article Twenty-
Six (26), Paragraph 26.1, of the present Agreement
is being administered fairly and equitably, I am re-
questing the following information:
1. The number of male and female employees,
blacks, handicapped, Indians, and Spanish-surnamed
employees in each classification for all units cov-
ered by a contract between Safeway Stores, Inc.
and this Local Union.
2. The hourly wage rate for each such employee.
3. The number of employees by race, sex, handi-
capped, and Spanish-surname, who have less than I
year's seniority, 1-2 years' seniority, 3-4 years' se-
niority, 5-9 years' seniority, 10-19 years' seniority,
and 20 or more years' seniority.
4. The number of persons hired in each classifica-
tion during the 12-month period immediately pre-
ceding the effective date of the information covered
in items I through 3 above, with a breakdown as to
sex, race, handicap, and Spanish surname, showing
the sex of all black and Spanish-surnamed persons.
5. The number of promotions or upgrades for the
same 12-month period, broken down by race, sex,
and Spanish-surnamed persons showing the job
level of each upgraded employee prior to and sub-
sequent to each such upgrade and the race, sex, and
whether Spanish-surnamed for each of these up-
graded employees.
6. A list of all complaints and charges filed
against Safeway Stores, Inc., Tulsa Division, under
the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246, and state fair
employment practices laws and copies of each com-
plaint or charge relating to employees in bargaining
units covered by this Local Union, along with any
related documents pertaining to the status of such
charges, provided that you may delete therefrom
the names of the charging parties.
7. Copies of the most recent work force analyses
filed under Executive Order 11246 and Revised
Order 4 of the Office of Federal Contract Compli-
ance Programs for or covering each store or loca-
tion covered by this Local Union.
We consider this information necessary for us to
carry out our statutory obligation to represent all
employees in the bargaining units.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention
in this matter.
Respondent replied by letter dated November 13,
1978, stating:
Due to the quantity of information requested, and as
all of your request may not be possible to comply
with, I request the specific nature of the grievance
involved.
By letter dated November 15, 1978, Nobles reiterated
that the information was necessary to insure that Respon-
dent was complying with the "No Discrimination" pro-
vision contained in the contract: and stated that, in addi-
tion, the information requested in paragraph 6 of the No-
vember 10, 1978, letter involved pending matters of in-
terest to the Union.
Subsequent communications between the parties estab-
lished that Respondent had determined not to furnish
any of the requested information. During the course of
these communications, according to Nobles, Respondent
at one point advised that it was concerned that the infor-
mation would be widely disseminated to individuals who
were not entitled to it. Nobles replied that issues regard-
ing the confidentiality of information had been raised in
the past and that the Union would furnish Respondent
with a statement to the effect that the information would
not be released by the Union.4 Also, Respondent stated
that it would be costly to retrieve and furnish the infor-
mation. Nobles replied that the Union would, if neces-
sary, pay such costs. Respondent continued to refuse to
furnish the requested information, and thereupon the in-
stant charge was filed.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
The information requested by the Union is virtually
identical with and was apparently patterned after the re-
quest for information made in Westinghouse Electric Cor-
poration, 239 NLRB 106 (1978).5 In determining that the
employer had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by its failure and refusal to furnish the Union with such
information, the Board found in Westinghouse that the
union therein was entitled to the information in order to
enable it to fulfill its statutory duties and responsibilities
to the employees it represents. Respondent herein has
not raised any issues or matters which would warrant a
different conclusion.
Respondent's contention that the Union must show a
relationship between the information requested and a
"specific grievance" was also addressed by the Board in
Westinghouse and was determined to be without merit. 6
Moreover, it is clear that the availability of other means
by which the information may be obtained does not
permit Respondent to avoid its obligation. Thus, Respon-
dent's duty is not altered by the fact that the Union
could perhaps obtain much of the requested information
through research and personal observation by its ste-
wards at each of Respondent's stores. 7 American Beef
Packers, Inc., 193 NLRB 1117, 1120 (1971); The Kroger
Company, 226 NLRB 512 (1976). A requirement that the
Union obtain information in this manner seems unduly
burdensome, and the information so obtained is likely to
3 Art. 26.1 of the current collective-bargaining agreement is entitled
"No Discrimination," and provides that Respondent "shall not discrimi-
nate against any employee on account f race, sex, creed, nationality,
color, religion, age, or on account of Union affiliation or on account of
any legitimate union activity."
' While Nobles' testimony is abbreviated on this point, it appears that
the Union and Respondent have resolved similar matters in the manner
suggested by Nobles.
s See also East Dayton Tool and Dye Co., 239 NLRB 141 (1978).
6 See also Robert J Weber and Richard K Weber d/b/a Weber Veneer
d Plywood Company, 161 NLRB 1054 (1966).
7 The Union has the contractual right to appoint a steward at each
store
1326
SAFEWAY SORES, INC.
be highly inaccurate, a result which could have deleteri-
ous consequences to the parties.
Respondent cites Detroit Edison Co. v. .L.R.B., 440
U.S. 301 (1979), in support of its contention that the re-
quested information need not be furnished. Detroit Edison
involved a request for psychological tests administered to
employees and the resultant employees' scores. The con-
fidentiality of such information was deemed by the court
to outweigh the union's need for it, particularly in the
absence of appropriate safeguards to prevent inadvertent
leaks. Unlike psychological test scores,8 the information
requested in the instant case is not the type of informa-
tion which would have the potential of compromising
the privacy rights of individual employees. Moreover,
Respondent's apparent argument that the Court would
find the information requested by the Union herein to be
similarly confidential, is negated by the fact that Respon-
dent has acknowledged that such information is readily
available to the union stewards on an ad hoc basis at each
store.
Respondent adduced testimony that it would take ap-
proximately 38 days of clerical time and would cost
about $6,378, to search out, accumulate, and copy the re-
quested information, and argues that it should not be re-
quired to make such expenditures, particularly as the
Union may obtain such information through its stewards.
The record evidence suggests, however, that the time
and cost of furnishing such information may have been
exaggerated by Respondent because it appears that Re-
spondent has a good deal of the information in readily
available form. Moreover, the Union has offered to pay
the necessary costs involved. Thus, contrary to the posi-
tion of Respondent, I find that the expense and inconve-
nience involved in furnishing the information is not so
great as to provide Respondent with sufficient justifica-
tion to avoid its bargaining obligation. 9
On the basis of the foregoing, I find that Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, as al-
leged. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, supra.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Safeway Stores, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 2(7) of
the Act.
2. Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 73, Retail Clerks In-
ternational Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All regular full-time and regular part-time employ-
ees, working for Respondent in stores located in Tulsa,
Sand Springs, Sapulpa, McAlester, and Stillwater, Okla-
homa, exclusive of meat department employees, manag-
ers, assistant managers, watchmen, guards, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
' It appears that medical records also fall within the category of infor-
mation which an employer may not he required to furnish to the collec-
tive-bargaining agent, except under certain limited circumstances. See
United Aircraft Corporation Pratt & 14 'hitney Divlsioni 192 NLRB 382,
390 (1971). modified on other grounds ub norm Lodge 743 and 1746. In-
ternational Associtarion of Machiniis and Aerospace W+orkers. AFL-CIO
United Aircraft Corporation. 534 F2d 422 (2d Cir 1975). cert denied 429
US 825 (1976)
9 The manner In which the parties shall resolve the matter of costs is
discussed in The Remedy section of this decision
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with
certain information which is relevant to the Union's per-
formance of its representative responsibilities on behalf of
unit employees.
THI REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or-
dered to cease and desist therefrom, that it furnish the
Union with the information requested in the Union's No-
vember 10, 1978, request, and that it post an appropriate
notice.
Moreover, as a concomitant part of Respondent's obli-
gation, it is further recommended that Respondent be or-
dered to bargain in good faith with the Union regarding
who shall bear any substantial costs involved in compil-
ing and furnishing the information. If no agreement can
be reached, the Union is entitled in any event to access
to records from which it can reasonably compile the in-
formation. If any dispute arises in applying these guide-
lines, it will be treated in the compliance stage of the
proceeding. See Food Employer Council. Inc., et al., 197
NLRB 651(1971), and cases cited therein at fn. 5; Wes-
tinghouse Electric Corporation, supra.
The Union maintains that Respondent's obligation to
furnish the requested information is so clear, that its re-
fusal is so blatant, and that its defenses and positions
herein are so patently frivolous, as to warrant an extraor-
dinary remedy, namely the assessment of reasonable legal
fees and expenses incurred by the Union in pursuing this
matter. See Hecks. Inc., 215 NLRB 765 (1974). More-
over, in support of this position, the Union presented evi-
dence at the hearing to show Respondent's prior history
of similar violations. Respondent contends that such a
remedy is inappropriate, and that it has frequently and
routinely furnished the Union with an abundance of re-
quested information.
The record shows the following: (1) that on July 29,
1970, the Union filed 8(a)(5) charges against Respondent
for failure to furnish information, and on September 15,
1970, such charges were withdrawn as Respondent
agreed to provide the information; (2) that on September
19, 1975, the Union filed 8(a)(5) charges against Respon-
dent for failure to furnish information, and such charges
resulted in the issuance of a complaint in Case 16-CA-
6149 on September 22, 1975, which matter was heard by
an Administrative Law Judge on December 4, 1975,
after which hearing Respondent provided the informa-
tion and the charges were thereupon withdrawn; (3) that
on December 12, 1975, the Union filed 8(a)(5) charges
against Respondent for failure to furnish information, and
such charges were withdrawn on January 14, 1976, fol-
lowing Respondent's agreement to provide the informa-
tion; (4) that on April 27, 1977, the Union filed 8(a)(5)
charges against Respondent for, inter alia, failure to pro-
vide information, and on June 3, 1977, Respondent and
the Union entered into a non-Board settlement of the
charges, Respondent agreeing, inter alia, to provide the
1 327
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union with the requested information; (5) that on Octo-
ber 18, 1978, the Union filed 8(a)(5) charges against Re-
spondent for failure to provide information, and on No-
vember 20, 1978, the parties entered into an informal set-
tlement providing for the posting of an appropriate
notice and the furnishing of the requested information.
Based on the foregoing, I do not deem it appropriate
to recommend that the Union be granted the relief re-
quested. Thus, the Westinghouse Electric Corporation case,
upon which the Union's request for information herein is
patterned, was a case of first impression in which one
Board member voiced a vigorous dissent, and an em-
ployer's obligation to furnish such information has not
been tested through the appeal process. Secondly, while
it appears that in approximately the last 10 years the
Union has had occasion to file six unfair labor practice
charges against Respondent involving the furnishing of
information, all but the instant charge having been set-
tled prior to decision by an Administrative Law Judge
or the Board, this history of charges and settlements
does not seem to show a callous disregard by Respon-
dent of its collective-bargaining obligations, even assum-
ing arguendo that Respondent would have been adjudged
to be legally obligated to furnish such information in the
aforementioned matters. In this connection it is important
to reiterate that the unit herein is comprised of some
1,500 employees employed at numerous stores, and that
the record reflects that Respondent has frequently hon-
ored the Union's past requests for information. More-
over, it does not appear that Respondent has ever been
requested, and therefore of course has never refused, to
furnish the type of information involved herein. I there-
fore find, contrary to the Union's position, that the
Board's customary remedy will effectuate the purposes
of the Act.
Upon 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:
ORDER ' 0
The Respondent, Safeway Stores, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
'o 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
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Retail Clerks
Union, Local No. 73, Retail Clerks International Associ-
ation, AFL-CIO, as representative of all regular full-time
and regular part-time employees working at stores locat-
ed in Tulsa, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, McAlester, and Still-
water, Oklahoma, exclusive of meat department employ-
ees, managers, assistant managers, watchmen, guards, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act, by refusing to fur-
nish the Union with information relevant to possible race
or sex discrimination or the advancement of equal oppor-
tunities for female and minority group employees in said
unit.
(b) In any like or related manner refusing to bargain
collectively with the Union, or interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Furnish the Union with the information requested
by it in its November 10, 1978, letter.
(b) Post at each of the stores employing bargaining
unit members, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix." Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 16, after being duly
signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall
be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, he 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 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
anlt to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
1328