Safeway Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 682 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Safeway Stores, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union, Local
No. 73, AFL-CIO, United Food & Commercial
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-
CLC.' Case 16-CA-8817
September 30, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) M MBFRS
JENKINS ANI) PENEI.tO
On June 25, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
James T. Rasbury issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its 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, as
modified below, and to adopt his recommended
Order, as herein modified.
i The name of the Charging Party. formerly Retail Clerks Union,
Local No 73, AF CIO() Retail Clerks International Association, AFI
CIO. is amended to reflect the change resulting from the merging of
Retail Clerks Internaltional Union and Amalgamated Meatlcutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, on June 7, 1979.
2 The Administratie law Judge found that Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act hy failing and refusing to furnish certain re-
quested information relevant Ito the Union's performance of its represen-
tational functins on behalf of unit employees and recommended that Re-
spondent be ordered o furnish the Union with all of the information re-
quested in its September 26, 1979, letter regarding the installation f elec-
tronic scanning equipment. Respondent contends that the Administrative
Law Judge erred by failing to limit his recommended order to the com-
plaint allegatins which charge that Respondent failed and refused to
provide only the following informaion requested i item 6 of the Union's
September 26 letter
A copy of any and all reports. studies, documents, test results,
and/or other findings prepared by or for Safeway Stores. Inc which
were considered by Corporate Management in arriving at the deci-
sin to install such system in the Tulsa Division as it relates to bar-
gaining unit employees. This would include such items as projected
improved labor cosIs savings through hours reductions, increased
productivity, reduced head count, elimination of item price marking,
elimination or modification of ordering, and/o r inventory proce-
dures. etc
Inasmuch as the complaint is narrowly drafted and the broader ques-
ion of whether Respondent satisfied its obligation ii provide the Union
with certain other information requested in the September 26 letter was
at no time raised by the General Counsel or litigated at the instant hear-
ing. we find merit to Respondent's contention and shall narrow the rec-
ommended Order accordingly Respondent further contends that the
complaint allegations are without merit because no documents were con-
sidered by the vice president and manager of the Tulsa Diision Dan
Cannon, in arriving at the decision to install scanning equipment i the
Tulsa Division However, we find this defense without merit f r the rea-
sons stated by the Administrative L aw Judge and based n the fact that
Respondent summarily refused i provide the Union with any of the in-
formation requested. leaving the Union without a guide to assist it in
framing a more precise demand Iawcer i Printing Corporation. 201 NLRH
964. 75 (1973) We also note that the request as made to "Corporate
Management" and herefore goes beyond docauments and papers consid-
ered by Cannon. and that studies were made by corporate mlanagement
252 NLRB No. 95
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 the action
set forth in the said recommended Order as mo-
difed:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Furnish the Union with the following infor-
mation requested in its September 26, 1979, letter:
"A copy of any and all reports, studies, doc-
uments, test results, and/or other findings pre-
pared by or for Safeway Stores, Inc. which
were considered by Corporate Management in
arriving at the decision to install electronic
scanning equipment in the Tulsa Division as it
relates to bargaining unit employees. This
would include such items as projected im-
proved labor costs savings through hours re-
ductions, increased productivity, reduced head
count, elimination of item price marking, elimi-
nation or modification of ordering, and/or in-
ventory procedures, etc."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
prior to a corporate "decision to offer scallning equipment to the various
geographic I)isions oii an oplitional basis" We therefore sustain the find-
ing orf the Administrativse I.aw Judge that Respondent's refusal to furnish
the material requested in item h, as enumnerated above, including that
which Respondentlt "Corptralte Managenicnl" ctnsidered in offering di-
visions the optionalll use of scanners. v iolated Sec. (a)(5) and (I) of the
Act
APPENDIX
NOICE 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 their evidence and state their posi-
tions, 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 Wll.l NOr refuse to bargain collectively
with Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 73, AFL-
CIO, United Food & Commercial Workers In-
ternational Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of all regular
full-time and regular part-time employees
682
SAFEWAY STORES, INC.
working at stores located in Tulsa, Sand
Springs, Sapulpa, McAlester, and Stillwater,
Oklahoma, exclusive of meat department em-
ployees, managers, assistant managers, watch-
men, guards, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE wVII1. NO'I refuse to furnish the Union
with information relevant and necessary to the
performance of its function as the collective-
bargaining representative on behalf of the unit
employees.
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.
WE WILL furnish the Union with the follow-
ing information requested in its September 26,
1979, letter:
A copy of any and all reports, studies,
documents, test results, and/or other find-
ings prepared by or for Safeway Stores, Inc.
which were considered by Corporate Man-
agement in arriving at the decision to install
electronic scanning equipment in the Tulsa
Division as it relates to bargaining unit em-
ployees. This would include such items as
projected improved labor costs savings
through hours reductions, increased produc-
tivity, reduced head count, elimination of
item price marking, elimination or modifica-
tion of ordering, and/or inventory proce-
dures, etc.
SAFEWAY STORES, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
JAMES T. RASBURY, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on April
9, 1980. A complaint and notice of hearing was issued by
the Regional Director for Region 16 on January 3, 1980,
based on a charge filed by the Retail Clerks Union,
Local No. 73, AFL-CIO, United Food & Commercial
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (herein-
after called the Union or the Charging Party). Respond-
ent's answer to the complaint, duly filed, denies the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices.
The complaint alleges that Respondent has failed to
supply the Union, upon proper request, with certain in-
formation necessary and relevant to the Union's perform-
ance of its function as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein
called the Act).
The parties were given a full opportunity to present
evidence, to argue orally, and to submit briefs. Helpful
briefs were received from the General Counsel, the
Charging Party and Respondent, and have been carefully
considered. Based on the entire record including my ob-
servation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I hereby
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURIS)ICTION
Safeway Stores, Inc. herein called (Respondent) is a
Maryland corporation engaged in the operation of a
chain of retail food stores, with stores located in the
Tulsa, Oklahoma, area. In the course and conduct of its
Oklahoma business operations, Respondent annually pur-
chases 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 Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOI.VED
The Union is now, and at all times material hereto, has
been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
in. THE AI.EGEDI UNFAIR L.ABOR PRACIICES
A. The Issue
The principal issue raised by the pleadings is whether
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing
and refusing to furnish the Union with certain informa-
tion, potentially relevant to its functions as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees.
B. Background
The Tulsa division of Respondent and this Local
Union have maintained an amicable collective-bargaining
relationship for more than 30 years, and are currently
parties to a multistore collective-bargaining agreement,
extending from April 16, 1978, through April 18, 1981,
covering some 1,500 unit employees.' During the course
of this collective-bargaining relationship, Respondent has
routinely furnished certain information requested by the
Union in the course of its performance as bargaining
agent. On occasion, however, Respondent has declined
to furnish the information requested, and in the following
instances these refusals have led to the filing of charges
with the Board.
(1) On July 29, 1970, charges in Case 16-CA-4061
were filed by the Union, against Respondent, alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. On September
The unit i described as follows:
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, exclusie orf meat department em-
ployees, managers, assistant managers. watchmen, guards. and all s1u-
peri,ors as defined in the Act
683
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
15, 1970, the Union withdrew the charges, stating, inter
a/lia, that Respondent had agreed to provide information
requested by the Union for bargaining.
(2) On September 19, 1975, the Union filed charges
against Respondent in Case 16-CA-6149, alleging, inter
alia, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
by refusing to provide information to the Union which it
had requested in the course of its performance as bar-
gaining agent. On September 22, 1975, a complaint and
notice of hearing in Case 16-CA-6149 issued, alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by Respondent.
On December 4, 1975, a hearing was held before Admin-
istrative Law Judge Paul Weil in Case 16-CA-6149. On
January 26, 1976, the Unions request to withdraw the
charges was approved by the Regional Director for
Region 16 after Respondent provided the information
sought for bargaining.
(3) On December 12, 1975, the Union filed charges
against Respondent in Case 16-CA-6367, alleging, inter
alia, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
by refusing to provide information which it had request-
ed in the course of its performance as bargaining agent.
On January 14, 1976, the Union's request to withdraw
the charges was approved by the Regional Director for
Region 16 after Respondent agreed to provide the infor-
mation sought for bargaining.
(4) On April 27, 1977, the Union filed charges against
Respondent Safeway Stores, Inc., in Case 16-CA-7180,
alleging, inter alia, that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to provide information to
the Union which it had requested in the course of its
performance as bargaining agent. On June 3, 1977, Re-
spondent entered into a non Board settlement of the
charges in Case 16-CA-7180, agreeing, inter alia, to pro-
vide to the Union the information it had requested. On
June 8, 1977, the Regional Director for Region 16 ap-
proved the withdrawal of the charges in Case 16-CA-
7180.
(5) On October 18, 1978, the Union filed chages
against Respondent in Case 16-CA-8148, alleging that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refus-
ing to provide the Union information which it had re-
quested in the course of its performance as bargaining
agent. On November 20, 1978, the Union and Respond-
ent entered into an informal settlement of the allegations
in Case 16-CA-8148, and Respondent posted notices at
specific stores which stated, inter alia, that it would pro-
vide specific information to the Union as requested in
connection with a pending grievance.
(6) On March 16, 1979, the Union filed charges against
Respondent in Case 16-CA-8386, alleging that Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to
provide information to the Union which it had requested
in the course of its performance as bargaining agent. On
April 10, 1979, a complaint and notice of hearing in Case
16-CA-8386 issued, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act by Respondent. On September 20, 1979, a
hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge
Gerald A. Wacknov in Case 16-CA-8386. On February
26, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Wacknov rendered
a decision finding that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act and recommending, inter alia, that Re-
spondent furnish to the Union the requested information.
On or about March 21, 1980, Respondent filed excep-
tions to the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
(7) On October 18, 1979, the Union filed charges
against Respondent in Case 16-CA-8772, alleging that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refus-
ing to provide information to the Union which it had re-
quested in the course of its performance as bargaining
agent. On March 13, 1980, the Union's request to with-
draw the charges was approved by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 16, after the parties entered into an under-
standing that the final adjudication in Case 16-CA-8386
(see par. 6) would be binding in Case 16-CA-8772 as
well.
C. The Evidence
On September 20, 1979, Charles M. Nobles, president
of the Union, received a letter from Al Donovan, Re-
spondent's branch manager:
In accordance with the provision Article 24.2 of the
collective-bargaining agreement, this is to advise
you that electronic scanning equipment will be in-
stalled in Store #554. The store is scheduled to
open in December 1979.
Nobles replied by letter dated September 26, 1979, ac-
knowledging Donovan's letter in regard to Article 24.22
of the collective-bargaining agreement, and requested the
following bargaining information:
1. A full and complete description of the type of
system to be installed.
2. The name of the manufacturer of the system.
3. A written statement as to the probable impact
or affect such system will have on the average
number of hours to be used per day and per week,
by classification, as compared to a similar size store
without such system.
4. A written statement as to any and all changes
affecting bargaining unit work which are anticipat-
ed, projected, or desired as a result of such system.
5. A list of all employees to be assigned to such
store with their seniority date, rate of pay, classifi-
cation, race, sex, creed, nationality, color, and age.
6. A copy of any and all reports, studies, docu-
ments, test results, and/or other findings prepared
by or for Safeway Stores, Inc. which were consid-
ered by Corporate Management in arriving at the
decision to install such system in the Tulsa Division
as it relates to bargaining unit employees. This
would include such items as projected improved
labor costs savings through hours reductions, in-
creased productivity, reduced head count, elimina-
Art. 24.2 of the agreement between the parties provided that in the
event of the installation of electronic scanning equipment, upon request
by the Union, the parties shall bargain with respect to:
(i) Rates of pay for new jobs which might be created by or result
from the institution of such electronic check-out system, (ii) Trans-
fers to comparable work ithin, or outside, the bargaining unit, or
the disposition f displaced employees resulting from the institution
of such electronic check-out system
684
SAFEWAY STORES, INC.
tion of item price marking, elimination or modifica-
tion of ordering, and/or inventory procedures, etc.
On October 9, 1979, Nobles sent another letter to
Donovan renewing the request for information that had
not been provided.
On October 19, 1979, Donovan wrote Nobles ac-
knowledging receipt of his letter of October 9 and re-
quested a meeting to discuss the opening of the new
scanner store. The information requested by Nobles in
his letter of September 26, 1979, was not included.
Nobles replied by letter dated October 22, 1979, stat-
ing:
I will appreciate your providing me with the previ-
ously requested information regarding the above
captioned matter prior to our meeting. I feel the
meeting will be more productive if I have the infor-
mation requested prior to such meeting. I renew the
request for the information.
Donovan responded by letter dated October 24. 1979,
renewing his request of October 19, 1979, for a meeting
to discuss the opening of the new store and the relevance
of portions of Nobles' request.
A meeting was held on October 30, 1979. Present at
the meeting were Nobles, Donovan, and Delay (a busi-
ness representative for the Local). Nobles again renewed
his request for information. Nobles expressed concern
over the impact the scanner would have on employees,
hours, jobs, item pricing, and inventory. Nobles testified
that on October 30, 1979, he was told by Donovan that
they had the information about the studies that he had
requested, and Oakland had done studies on all of the
scanning units and what they would do, but they were
not going to give them to the Union. The parties agreed
to have a meeting after the 30th to look at the scanner.
Nobles testified that Donovan agreed to answer all ques-
tions at the meeting and make a written statement as to
what information he would provide and what informa-
tion he would not provide. Such statement was never re-
ceived.
The parties met on November 6, 1979, to view the
prototype scanner. Kathy Dresher, the training supervi-
sor for Respondent, was there to demonstrate how the
scanner operated. When asked if the scanner would keep
perpetual inventory and if the prices would be removed
from the individual merchandise, Dresher replied that
she did not know.
Nobles received a letter from Donovan on November
15, 1979, containing information concerning the three
stores that were closed, and where those employees had
been transferred. The information with respect to
Nobles' requests made on September 26, 1979, was never
received.
Nobles testified that over a year ago, Paul Johnson of
Safeway Industrial Relations Department in Phoenix,
told him that he worked on the scanners and studies
when he was employed in the Safeway corporate offices
in Oakland. Nobles testified further that Donovan had
told him that studies existed and made reference specifi-
cally to Denver.
Al Donovan was not able to appear, having obliga-
tions which predated the change of the trial date. How-
ever, Dan Cannon, Tulsa division manager, appeared as
witness fr Respondent. Cannon testified that he saw a
demonstration of scanning equipment and stated,
"Beyond that, as a district manager in the Seattle area, I
was not involved with the scanning at that level, al-
though I think there was some investigation going on at
the division level which was beyond my reach." Cannon
testified further that he had received a verbal communi-
cation from corporate headquarters to proceed with in-
stallation of scanning, if he desired. In making his deci-
sion to implement scanning equipment Cannon stated,
"Well, at that time, there was no direction given from
corporate, or no guidelines: no documents, reports, or
studies presented. My decision to go to scanning was
based solely and most importantly upon my belief in the
accuracy of the system." Cannon believes that the scan-
ner will greatly reduce inventory loss, based on conver-
sations with business associates.
Cannon testified that his recommendation to purchase
the scanner was based on volume of sales based on,
"One, my best judgment, my seat-of-the-pants judgment
of driving, observing the area and knowing the competi-
tion of the area, knowing their sales, knowing our sales,
and the district stores, et cetera, and upon the use of
market analysis studies and surveys, which provide that
type of information."
Diane Smith, counsel for the Charging party, appeared
to request extraordinary relief in the form of attorneys'
fees based on past refusals to grant requested informa-
tion, and subsequent filing of charges with the National
Labor Relations Board. Smith was allowed to present
into evidence, a stipulation marked the Charging Party's
Exhibit ."
Analysis and Conclusions
The particular circumstances in each case must be con-
sidered in determining whether the statutory obligation
of the employer to bargaining in good faith has been
met. 4 In determining that the employer has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act by its failure and refusal to furnish
the Union with certain information, the Board in Wes-
tinghouse Electric Corporation, 239 NLRB 106 (1978),
found that the union therein was entitled to the informa-
tion in order to enable it to fulfill its statutory duties and
responsibilities to the employees it represents. Respond-
ent herein has not raised any issues or matters which
would warrant a different conclusion.
The Union's obligation to the employees and its right
to act on their behalf as bargaining representative stems
from the statute and the collective-bargaining agree-
ment.5 It is well established that a union is obligated to
represent employees in a bargaining unit with respect to
I Exh. I incorporated all refusals to furnish information requested
Counsel for the Charging Party, Respondent, and the General Counsel
acknowledge the exhibit as a true and accurate compilation of the afore-
mentioned refusals to furnish requested information The findings. supra.
with respect Io Respondent's past failure to furnish requested Information
are based on this stipulation.
J. I Cua. Company ,'SL.R.B, 253 F2d 149 (1958)
3 Ohio Power (ompun.,, 216 NLRB 987 (1975)
685
DECISIONS ()F NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 13BOARD
the terms and conditions of their employment, and is en-
titled to such information from the employer as may be
relevant and necessary for the proper and intelligent per-
formance of its function.i The test of the union's need
for such information is merely 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."'
An employer's refusal to provide information relating
to a change in working conditions resulting from techno-
logical changes, violates the employer's duty to bargain
collectively and not to interfere with employees' exercise
of guaranteed rights as set forth under Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act.8 The installation of a scanner constitutes a tech-
nological change, which quite probably would affect
working conditions, thus imposing a duty on Respondent
to provide requested information which is in existence
and reasonably available to it relating to the change in
working conditions.
Respondent's contention that the information sought
by the Union was nonexistent was sufficiently confused,
vague, and indefinite to cause me to conclude that the in-
formation requested did, in fact, exist in the corporate
headquarters, though Respondent's division manager
may not have had direct access to it. I am unable to con-
clude in the face of the record evidence, that the corpo-
rate headquarters would authorize the spending of thou-
sands of dollars to install a scanner based on word-of-
mouth communications without referring to a single test,
documentary report, guideline, or study.
Respondent failed or refused to supply the requested
information prior to the meeting on October 30, 1979.
The court of appeals held in Curtiss-Wright Corporation,
Wright Aeronautical Division v. N.L.R.B., 347 F.2d 61
(1965), that if data requested is relevant and necessary to
the union's role as bargaining agent in the administration
of a collective-bargaining agreement it is an unfair labor
practice for the employer to refuse to furnish the re-
quested data; and merely meeting and conferring without
prior exchange of requested data, where relevant, does
not facilitate collective bargaining, and meet require-
ments imposed on the employer under Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, I find that Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, as alleged.
CONCI.USIONS 01 LAW
I. Safeway Stores, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 73, AFL-CIO,
United Food & Commercial Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, is a labor organization 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-
I The Fafnlr Bearing Company. 146 NLRH 1582 (1964).
NL.R.B, v. Acme Indusrial Co., 385 US. 432 (1967)
s Texaco, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 407 F2d 754 (1969)
ers, assistant managers, watchmen, guards, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
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) of the Act
by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with certain
information, which is relevant to the Union's perform-
ance of its representative responsibilities on behalf of unit
employees.
TH RMHl)Y
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 Sep-
tember 26, 1979, 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 Employers Council, Inc., et al., 197
NLRB 651 (1972), and cases cited therein at footnote 5;
Westinghouse El ctric 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 reasonble legal
fees and expenses incurred by the Union in pursuing this
matter. See le,.k's 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 Re-
spondent 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 the Respondent provided the
information, 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 infor-
mation, and such charges were withdrawn on January
14, 1976, following Respondent's agreement to provide
the information; (4) that on April 27, 1977, the Union
filed 8(a)(5) charges against Respondent for, inter alia,
failure to provide information, and on June 3, 1977, Re-
686
SAFEWAY STORES. INC
spondent and the Union entered into a non-Board settle-
ment of the charges, Respondent agreeing, inter alia, to
provide the Union with the requested information; (5)
that on October 18, 1978, the Union filed 8(a)(5) charges
against Respondent for failure to provide information,
and on November 20, 1978, the parties entered into an
informal settlement providing for the posting of an ap-
propriate notice and the furnishing of the requested in-
formation; and (6) that on March 16, 1979. the Union
filed 8(a)(5) charges against Respondent for failure to
provide information and such charges resulted in the is-
suance of a complaint in Case 16-CA--3386 on April 10,
1979, which matter was heard by Administrative Law
Judge Wacknov on September 20, 1979, after which
hearing a decision was rendered finding that Respondent
had violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and recommend-
ing that Respondent furnish to the Union the requested
information. On or about March 21, 1980, Respondent
filed exceptions to the decision of the Administrative
Law Judge.
Based on the foregoing, I do not deem it appropriate
to recommend that the Union be granted the relief re-
quested. While it appears that in approximately the last
10 years the Union has had occasion to file seven unfair
labor practice charges against Respondent involving the
furnishing of information. all but two charges have been
settled 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 Respond-
ent of its collective-bargaining obligations, even assuming
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 9
The Respondent, Safeway Stores, Inc., Tulsa, Oklaho-
ma, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
t In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National abor Relatiins Board. the find-
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Retail Clerks
Union. Local No. 73, AFL-CIO, United Food & Cornm-
mercial Workers International Union. AFL-CIO-CLC,
as representative of all regular full-time and regular part-
time employees working at stores located in Tulsa Sand
Springs, Sapulpa, McAlester, and Stillsater. Oklahoma.
exclusive of meat department employees. managers. as-
sistant managers. watchmen, guards. and all supervisors
as defined in the Act, by refusing to furnish the Union
with informationl relevant to the performance of its func-
tion as collectivec-bargaining representative on behalf of
the unit employees.
(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 September 26. 1979. letter.
(b) Post at each of the stores employing bargaining
unit members, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix." ' Copies of the 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 b anly
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.
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as prosided iI
Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted bh the Hoard arid
hecome Its findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto
shall he deemed vaised fir all purposes.
"' In the event that his Order is enforced hby a Judgment of a United
Stales Court of Appeals., the ords In the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National abor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing al)
Order of the National I ahor Relations Board "
68R7