Super Valu Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1986

279 N.L.R.B. 22 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Super Vain Stores , Inc. and General Drivers &
Helpers Union, Local 554, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Cases
17-CA-12329 and 17-CA-12342
31 March 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
On 11 April 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Donald R. Holley issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in the proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge' s rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent , Super Valu
Stores, Inc., Omaha , Nebraska, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order.
Anne G. Purcell, Esq., for the General Counsel.
A. Stevenson Bogue, Esq. (McGrath, North, O'Malley &
Kratz, P.C.), for the Respondent.
Maynard H. Weinberg, Esq. (Weinberg & Weinberg, P.C.),
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DONALD R. HOLLEY, Administrative Law Judge. On
original charges filed by the Union in Cases 17-CA-
12329 and 17-CA-12342 on September 17 and Septem-
ber 28, 1984,' respectively, the Regional Director for
Region 17 of the National Labor Relations Board (the
Board) issued a complaint on November 26 which al-
leged , in substance, that Super Valu Stores, Inc. (the Re-
spondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act) in September 1984 by re-
fusing to furnish the Union with certain specified pur-
chase and/or sales agreements and an employee hand-
book which are allegedly relevant to the Union's func-
tion as the bargaining representative of certain of Re-
spondent 's employees. By timely answer, Respondent
denies it has engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint.
The case was heard in Omaha, Nebraska, on Decem-
ber 11, 1984. All parties were present and were permit-
' All dates herein are 1984 unless otherwise indicated
led full opportunity to participate. On the entire record,
including the briefs filed by counsel , and from my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses, when they gave
testimony , I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Super Valu Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
admits that from November 1982 until September 21,
1984, it was engaged in the nonretail sale and distribution
of groceries at a distribution center located in Omaha,
Nebraska . Additionally , it admits that , during that
period, its annual sales and purchases to and from cus-
tomers and suppliers located outside the State of Nebras-
ka exceeded $50,000 . Respondent admits, and I find, that
at all times material , it has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
II. STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION
It is admitted, and I find, that the Union is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
On November 28, 1982, Respondent obtained a whole-
sale grocery distribution center located at 4206 South
108th Street, Omaha, Nebraska, which had previously
been operated by a food chain named Hinky Dinky.
Under the terms of the purchase agreement , Respondent
was entitled to require Cullum Companies, Hinky
Dinky's parent corporation, to repurchase the facility if
Hinky Dinky's volume of purchases from the distribution
center were not maintained at a given level.
For some time prior to the above-described transac-
tion, certain Hinky Dinky employees at the distribution
center had been represented by Local 554. When it ob-
tained the facility, Respondent honored and abided by
the then subsisting collective -bargaining agreement be-
tween Hinky Dinky and the Union. In February 1983,
the agreement was renegotiated . The new agreement,
which became effective on February 6, 1983, and con-
tains an expiration date of February 8, 1986 , was placed
in the record as Joint Exhibit 1.
In mid-August 1984, Thomas McFarland, secretary-
treasurer of Local 554, telephoned John Prior, Respond-
ent's vice president, labor relations, to inquire whether a
rumor that Respondent was going resell the Omaha dis-
tribution center to Hinky Dinky was true. Prior, who
was unaware of any such intention , told McFarland he
would check the matter out and call him back. Prior sub-
sequently called McFarland and told him the rumor was
true. McFarland then asked if Prior knew to whom
Hinky Dinky intended to sell the facility, and Prior told
him he did not know but would let him know if he
found out. McFarland then indicated he would like to
have a copy of the 1982 contract by which Respondent
obtained the distribution center and would like a copy of
the agreement whereby Respondent conveyed the prop-
279 NLRB No. 5
SUPER VALU STORES
erty back to Hinky Dinky. Prior told him he did not
think that would present a problem but he would have to
check with his legal department.
Prior testified that, on several occasions during late
August and early September , McFarland telephoned to
ask if he knew whether certain potential purchasers of
the distribution center were going to buy it. Prior in-
formed him he had talked to some people in Hinky
Dinky, but they were being close -mouthed and would
not tell him anything.
During the same period, Jerry Younger, the Local's
president , indicated he contacted the Union 's representa-
tive, who was with the Central Conference of Teamsters,
to ascertain whether he knew to whom Hinky Dinky
was going to sell the distribution center. Younger indi-
cated the representative contacted someone with the
Cullum Companies and thereafter informed him Cullum
did not know at that time to whom they would be sell-
ing the distribution center.
On August 15, Younger met with Jim Showalter, Re-
spondent's vice president of personnel, and the Omaha
division president, Ken Kegerreis , and the latter formally
informed him that Respondent was going to exercise its
option to require Hinky Dinky to repurchase the Omaha
distribution center because Hinky Dinky had failed to
fulfill its agreement to purchase a given volume of gro-
ceries through the distribution center and it had failed to
construct a new facility as required by the 1982 purchase
agreement.
By letter dated August 28, Prior formally notified
McFarland and Local 554 that Respondent intended to
sell the Omaha distribution center to the Cullum Compa-
nies , Hinky Dinky's parent company. In the letter Prior
indicated the bargaining unit employees' last day of work
would be September 25, and he offered to meet with the
Union at their mutual convenience to discuss the impact
of Respondent 's decision to sell on the bargaining unit
employees.
Thereafter, in early September, McFarland telephoned
Prior to complain that he had not received copies of the
1982 and 1984 purchase and/or sales agreements he had
requested. Prior informed him his legal department had
advised him Respondent would not give the documents
to the Union because they were private documents be-
tween two parties. Prior indicated Respondent preferred
the Union obtain the documents from Cullum. McFar-
land replied he still needed the documents and Prior sug-
gested he request them in writing , indicating he would
deny the request in writing . Prior indicated he felt they
should meet to talk about the effects of the closing, and
carry through with the documents matter as a separate
issue.
By letter dated September 10, authored by Prior, Re-
spondent formally refused to furnish the Union with
copies of the purchase agreements between it and the
Cullum Companies , indicating that such agreements "are
agreements between two private parties." In the letter
Prior again indicated Respondent 's willingness to discuss
the impact of Respondent 's termination decision.
During the week of September 10, Prior telephoned
McFarland to advise him Respondent would close the
Omaha warehouse on September 21, rather than Septem-
23
ber 25. A meeting was scheduled for September 18 in
Omaha.
On September 18, the parties met at the Teamsters
building in Omaha . Representing the Union were:
McFarland , Maynard Weinberg , its attorney; Walt
Thompson, chief steward; Jerry Younger, president of
Local 554; and Elmer Davis, business agent . Represent-
ing Respondent were : Prior; Jim Showalter , vice presi-
dent personnel ; and Ed Gesic , distribution center manag-
er. McFarland and Weinberg were the principal spokes-
men for the Union, and Prior was the spokesman for Re-
spondent. Younger, Thompson, Weinberg, and Prior de-
scribed what occurred during the meeting when they ap-
peared as witnesses . Although their recollections differed
somewhat , a composite of their testimony reveals the fol-
lowing occurred.
At the outset of the meeting , McFarland again request-
ed that Respondent furnish the Union with copies of the
1982 and 1984 purchase and/or sale agreements , indicat-
ing the Union needed the documents to enable it to prop-
erly represent the bargaining unit employees . Prior indi-
cated Respondent would not furnish the documents.
Although Prior testified McFarland informed the Re-
spondent negotiators that they could not proceed with
the effects bargaining unless the purchase and/or sales
agreements were produced, the record reveals that, in
fact, the parties proceeded with their negotiations.
During the course of the meeting , they discussed ac-
crued employee vacations , and some information in the
form of a computer printout was given to the Union.
Apparently, there was some discussion of the fact that
the trustees of the pension plan were to furnish the par-
ties with estimates of the pension rights of employees,
and the parties discussed how final inventory would be
taken and how the employees would be paid.
At some point during the meeting, Attorney Weinberg
sought to indicate what information the Union was seek-
ing and the reasons for its requests. He first referred to
section 21.3 of the parties' contract which provides:
The Employer agrees not to enter into any agree-
ment or contract with his employees, individually
or collectively, which in any way conficts with the
terms and provisions of the Agreement. The Em-
ployer is permitted to make and enforce any reason-
able Company rules which do not conflict with the
provisions of this Agreement. The Local Unions
shall be furnished a copy of such rules and unless
protested by the Local Union in writing within ten
(10) working days after receipt, such rules shall
become effective. Any Union protest under this
Section which cannot be resolved between the par-
ties shall be processed through the regular griev-
ance procedure of this Agreement, including the ar-
bitration.
After quoting the section, he informed Prior the Union
would like to have a copy of the rules promulgated by
Respondent. Prior, who indicated during his testimony
that Respondent had promulgated no rules pursuant to
the provision, informed Weinberg he would have to
check with his legal counsel regarding the request. Wein-
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
berg then quoted section 13.1 of the contract, which pro-
vides:
All Employer rights, functions, responsibilities
and authority not specifically surrendered or modi-
fied by the express terms of this Agreement are re-
tained by the Company and remain within the
rights of management.
After quoting the provision, Weinberg claims he indicat-
ed the Union wanted Respondent 's employee manual to
permit the Union to ascertain how Respondent was treat-
ing nonbargaining unit employees on termination. Prior,
who testified Respondent had no employee manual appli-
cable to union employees but had a companywide policy
manual covering exempt and nonexempt nonunion em-
ployees which defined their benefits, again indicated he
would have to check with legal counsel before he would
attempt to comply with the Union's request.2 Weinberg
next paraphrased section 32.5 of the contract which pro-
vides:
Action for delinquent contributions may be insti-
tuted by the Union, the Local Union, the Area Con-
ference or the Trustees. Employers who are delin-
quent must also pay all attorney's fees and cost of
collection.
Weinberg indicated the Union was requesting the 1982
and 1984 purchase agreements between Respondent and
Hinky Dinky and/or the Cullum Companies for several
reasons. Among those reasons were: (1) a need by the
Union to determine what rights the bargaining unit em-
ployees would have with respect to seniority, layoff, and
recall;3 and (2) a need to ascertain which entity was
liable for an alleged $2.3 million liability under the
ERISA legislation due to the fact that Hinky Dinky
and/or Respondent had withdrawn from the Central
States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas Pension Fund
thereby creating an unfunded pension fund delinquency
which some entity would have to satisfy. Prior testified
he informed Weinberg the question of Respondent's li-
ability under ERISA was being handled by the corporate
legal department and a position had already been estab-
lished with the Central Conference of Teamsters.
Finally, at some point, Weinberg made reference to a
Nebraska statute which required that employees be noti-
2 Considerable confusion exists concerning the request for the employ-
ee manual Younger and Thompson indicated they thought they saw a
gold document with the words "Employee Manual" printed in blue in
Prior's briefcase during the meeting Younger indicated the described
document was the document they were requesting Prior testified the
only gold document with blue lettering he ever possessed was a Team-
sters manual Noting that Weinberg testified he later inquired at a union
meeting whether any of the bargaining unit members had been given an
employee manual by Respondent , I suspect he was asking for any manual
applicable to bargaining unit employees during the meeting I am satisfied
no such document exists In any event , the record reveals Weinberg sub-
sequently obtained an employee manual applicable to nonunit employees
employed at the Omaha facility which describes the benefits they re-
ceived as employees
8 Younger indicated during his testimony that when Hinky Dinky con-
veyed to Respondent , bargaining unit employees enjoyed unlimited recall
rights, but they were restricted to a year or two under the Union's con-
tract with Respondent , he further indicated the Union considered the em-
ployees to be in layoff status from both Hinky Dinky and Respondent
feed within 10 days after termination of their rights to
convert group insurance coverage to a private plan. He
did not expressly indicate that he sought any specific
document to permit the Union to ascertain whether Re-
spondent intended to comply with the insurance notifica-
tion requirement.
At the conclusion of his testimony, Union Counsel
Weinberg placed in evidence as Charging Party's Exhibit
3 a warranty deed with attachments which reveals that
on September 25, 1984, Super Valu Stores, Inc. con-
veyed the Omaha distribution center to American Com-
munity Stores Corporation. Prior testified Hinky Dinky,
Cullum Companies, and the grantee named in the deed
are all one and the same.
It is undisputed that neither Respondent nor Hinky
Dinky operated the Omaha distribution center from Sep-
tember 21, 1984, through the date of the hearing held in
this proceeding . The record suggest that the property
has been conveyed by American Community Stores Cor-
poration to Nash-Finch, but no documentary evidence
was offered to establish that such is a fact.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
The general legal principles applicable in cases such as
the case sub judice were recently set forth in Bohemia,
Inc., 272 NLRB 1128, 1129 (1984), in which the Board
stated:
It is well established that an employer must provide
a union with requested information "if there is a
probability that such data is relevant and will be of
use to the union in fulfilling its statutory duties and
responsibilities as the employees' exclusive bargain-
ing representative." Associated General Contractors
of California, 242 NLRB 891, 893 (1979), enfd. 633
F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1980); NLRB v. Acme Industrial
Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). The Board uses a liberal,
discovery-type standard to determine whether infor-
mation is relevant, or potentially relevant, to require
its production. NLRB Y. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S.
149 (1956). Information about terms and conditions
of employment of employees actually represented
by a union is presumptively relevant and necessary
and is required to be produced. Ohio Power Co., 216
NLRB 987 (1975), enfd. 531 F.2d 1381 (6th Cir.
1976). Information necessary for processing griev-
ances under a collective-bargaining agreement, in-
cluding that necessary to decide whether to proceed
with a grievance or arbitration, must be provided as
it falls within the ambit of the parties' duty to bar-
gain . NLRB v. Acme Industrial, supra; Bickerstaff
Clay Products, 266 NLRB 983 (1983).
However, when a union's request for information
concerns data about employees or operations other
than those represented by the union, or data on fi-
nancial , sales , and other information, there is no
presumption that the information is necessary and
relevant to the union's representation of employees.
Rather, the union is under the burden to establish
the relevance of such information. Ohio Power,
supra.
SUPER VALU STORES
The complaint in the instant case alleges that Respond-
ent violated the Act by refusing to furnish the Union
with a copy of the purchase agreement by Super Valu
wherein it acquired the distribution center in 1982, a
copy of the purchase agreement between Super Valu and
Cullum Companies, effective September 25, 1984, and
the personnel manual. As the information requested does
not relate directly to the terms and conditions of employ-
ment of the employees represented by the Union, it is
not presumptively relevant to the Union's representation
function.
C. The Employee Manual
Noting that Attorney Weinberg requested that Re-
spondent furnish the Union with its employee manual
while discussing section 13 . 1 (rules enabling clause) and
section 21.3 (management-rights clause) of the collective-
bargaining agreement and, apparently , immediately after
witnesses Younger and Thompson thought they saw a
gold-colored document with blue lettering in Prior's
briefcase, it appears that Weinberg was actually request-
ing a copy of any employee manual applicable in whole
or in part to bargaining unit employees. My suspicion
that such was the case is enforced by Weinberg's admis-
sion that he subsequently sought to ascertain , at a union
meeting , whether union members had ever received an
employee manual, and Younger's inability, during later
discussions with Prior, to describe the document Wein-
berg was seeking . I credit Prior's assertion that Respond-
ent has no employee manual which is applicable to its
union employees.
Although it would appear that the allegation that Re-
spondent unlawfully refused to give the Union an em-
ployee manual should be dismissed because the manual
requested does not exist, the General Counsel argues in
her brief that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by re-
fusing to give the Union copies of its employee manuals
which define Respondent's relationship with its nonunion
employees. I find the contention to be without merit for
several reasons.
First, I am unwilling, after carefully reviewing the
record in this case, to find that the Union requested that
Respondent supply it with any employee manual applica-
ble to only its nonunion employees. Second, assuming,
arguendo, the Union's request made at the September 18
meeting was broad enough to be construed as a request
for information relating to nonunit employees, I find that
the Union's announced reason for requesting the infor-
mation-a desire to ascertain how Respondent was treat-
ing nonunion employees when closing the Omaha distri-
bution center-is insufficient to establish that such em-
ployee manual was relevant to the Union's performance
of its effects bargaining function. Finally, I note that the
record reveals the Union had obtained the employee
manual which describes the benefits received by Re-
spondent's nonunion employees prior to the hearing in
this proceeding.
In sum , for the reasons set forth above, I recommend
that the allegation that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) by failing to furnish the Union with an employee
manual be dismissed.
25
D. The 1982 and 1984 Agreements
The record reveals that the Union requested the 1982
and 1984 purchase and/or sales agreements between Re-
spondent and the Cullum Companies for three reasons:
(1) to permit the Union to more effectively represent unit
employees in effects bargaining; (2) to permit the Union
to ascertain the seniority, layoff, and recall rights of unit
employees subsequent to the closing of the distribution
center; and (3) to permit the Union to ascertain which
corporation, if any, was liable for an alleged $2.3 million
owing to Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas
Pension Fund by virtue of the Employment Retirement
Investment Security Act (ERISA).
In agreement with Respondent, I find the first stated
reason for requesting the agreements between Respond-
ent and a third party is, standing alone, inadequate. The
Union's theory of relevance must be reasonably specific;
general avowals of reliance such as "to bargain intelli-
gently" and similar boilerplate are insufficient. Soule
Glass & Glazing Co. v. NLRB, 652 F.2d 1055, 1099 (1st
Cir. 1981).
With respect to the Union's claim that it needed the
agreements to determine the seniority, layoff, and recall
rights of bargaining unit employees, I note that Adminis-
trative Law Judge Shapiro, with subsequent Board ap-
proval, found in Westwood Import Co., 251 NLRB 1213,
1226-1227 ( 1980), that, in a successor situation, a union is
entitled to sales information which would shed light on
the question of whether the new employer was a differ-
ent employer than its predecessor and, if so, whether it is
a successor employer for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining. Although the General Counsel cites and relies
on Westwood Import Co., supra , I find the instant situa-
tion is factually distinguishable. Here, all the bargaining
unit employees were terminated on September 21, 1984,
and the record clearly reveals the Union was aware of
the fact that Hinky Dinky had no intention of reopening
the facility and rehiring the former Respondent employ-
ees. Instead, Hinky Dinky apparently indicated it intend-
ed to sell the facility. In the circumstances, it appears the
employees represented by the Union had no seniority,
layoff, or recall rights. That being the case, I find the
General Counsel has failed to show that the requested
agreements were relevant to the seniority, layoff, and
recall rights of the bargaining unit employees.
As noted, the Union's last stated reason for requesting
information pertaining to the 1982 and 1984 transaction
involving the Omaha distribution center is its claim that
the information is relevant to a determination of which
entity, if any, is liable for unfunded liability due to the
pension fund. Respondent strenuously argues that the
Local Union is not entitled to the information requested
because: (1) Local 554's duty with respect to the pension
fund is solely to ensure that signatory employers fulfill
their obligation to make the weekly contributions of $51
per full-time employees to the fund; (2) the trustees of
the fund, rather than Local 554, would be the party enti-
tled to institute an action to recover unfunded liability
amounts due under ERISA; and (3) the Union has failed
to prove that Respondent's failure to satisfy any unfund-
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ed liability to the fund would affect the pension rights of
bargaining unit employees.
Patently, the pension rights of the bargaining unit em-
ployees employed by Respondent through September 21,
1984, are matters which relate directly to the terms and
conditions of employment of the employees . Moreover,
the record in this case reveals that Respondent 's bargain-
ing unit employees were seeking , after receiving notifica-
tion that the Omaha distribution center was to be closed,
to ascertain what they were entitled to receive as a result
of the prior participation by Hinky Dinky and Respond-
ent in the Central States Pension Fund . Although Re-
spondent contends the General Counsel and the Union
have failed to show that a single employer's failure to
satisfy its monetary obligations to the multiemployer
fund would have any effect on the benefits that employ-
er's employees would receive from the fund, common
sense causes one to conclude that the failure of individ-
ual participating employer members to make a required
contribution would affect all beneficiaries of the fund.
In the instant situation , Respondent repeatedly in-
formed the Union that it was going to reconvey the dis-
tribution center to Hinky Dinky and/or the Cullum
Companies. In fact, the record reveals that information
was not truthful as the property was conveyed to Ameri-
can Community Stores Corporation. The Union claims it
now needs to inspect the 1982 and 1984 documents
which would reveal the details of the transactions in-
volving the alleged transfers of the Omaha distribution
Center to permit it to determine what entity is liable for
the payment of certain unfunded liability to the fund. In
the circumstances, I find that General Counsel has dem-
onstrated that the information requested is relevant to
the Union's obligation to attempt to ensure that the em-
ployers of the bargaining unit employees make required
contributions to the pension fund. In my view, Respond-
ent has failed to demonstrate that it had a legitimate busi-
ness reason for refusing to furnish the information re-
quested. By engaging in such action, I find it has violat-
ed Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act as alleged.
Here, as in Westwood Import Co., supra, the Respond-
ent is not obligated to furnish the Union with all infor-
mation concerning the 1982 and 1984 transactions in-
volving the Omaha distribution center. It is obligated,
however, to furnish that information which sheds light
on the obligation of Respondent, Hinky Dinky, the
Cullum Companies, or American Community Stores
Corporation's obligation to satisfy their ERISA's obliga-
tions to the pension fund.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(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. All checkers, receiving clerks, forklift operators,
freezer employees, cigarette room employees , warehouse
employees, light warehouse employees, sanitation em-
ployees, city drivers, and country drivers employed by
Respondent at its Omaha , Nebraska facility but EX-
CLUDING office clerical employees , guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material, the Union has been the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit.
5. By failing since September 10, 1984, to furnish the
Union with information which is relevant to its functions
as the bargaining representative of its employees, Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed4
ORDER
The Respondent, Super Valu Stores, Inc., Omaha, Ne-
braska, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to furnish the Union with information re-
garding the 1982 and 1984 purchase and/or sale of the
Omaha distribution center which sheds light on the obli-
gation of Respondent, Hinky Dinky, the Cullum Compa-
nies , or American Community Stores Corporation to sat-
isfy their ERISA obligations to the Central States,
Southeast , and Southwest Areas Pension Fund.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Mail signed and dated copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix" to all employees on its payroll as of
September 10, 1984, to their last known address.5 Copies
of such notices, to be furnished to Respondent by the
Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly signed
and dated by Respondent's representative, shall be
mailed by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof.
(b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations not specifically
found herein.
* 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
5 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 Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
SUPER VALU STORES 27
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with General Drivers
& Helpers Union , Local 554, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America by refusing to supply relevant infor-
mation to the Union on request.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL furnish the above-named Union with infor-
mation concerning our 1982 purchase of the Omaha dis-
tribution center and our 1984 sale of the facility, which
sheds light on the obligation , if any, of the parties to
such purchase and/or sale to pay an alleged unfunded li-
ability to the Central States, Southeast, and Southwest
Areas Pension Fund.
SUPER VALU STORES, INC.