191 N.L.R.B. 371 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

Thomas Markets

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 21, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 371 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

THOMAS MARKETS Roy Thomas and James Thomas , d/b/a Thomas Mar- kets and Retail Store Employees Local No. 782 affiliated with Retail Clerks International Associa- tion . Cases 17-CA-4166 and 17-CA-4349 June 21, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On March 30, 1971, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro- ceeding finding Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Re- spondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of such allegations. Thereafter, the Respond- ent and General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. 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 powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex- aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi- cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we conclude that the unfair labor practices in,the circumstances in this proceeding are neither so extensive in number nor so pervasive in character as to require finding a viola- tion of Section 8(a)(5) or the imposition of a bargaining order to remedy the unlawful effect. Respondent's manager did engage in unlawful interrogation of em- ployees when the Union, first presented itself in late 1969 in violation of Section 8(a)(1). However, this con- duct has not been repeated since. Respondent's only other violation of the Act was its withholding of the April 1970 wage increase until June 1970 in violation of,Section 8(a)(1). We,,,of course, view with great con- cern-, as to itst effect on the employees' freedom of choice, any failure to grant.a scheduled increase as well as. any granting of an unscheduled increase when there. is a question concerning I representation pending. It is now- well settled that'under some circumstances such conduct, in and of itself, would-warrant the issuance of 191 NLRB No. 75 371 a bargaining order.' However, here we are convinced that Respondent failed to grant the increase on schedule because of a misguided effort to comply with the restriction it was under as a result of the settlement agreement, subsequently set aside in Case 17-CA- 4166,2 and that its actions were not motivated by a desire to interfere with the soon-to-be scheduled elec- tion. We note that Respondent's employees at some of its other stores are represented by the Union herein and that Respondent and the Union enjoy an amicable rela- tionship at those stores. As there were only a few in- stances of 8(a)(1) violations other than the withholding of the wage increase, as the violations have not been repeated, and as Respondent's withholding of a wage increase was as a result of its honest, though misguided, effort to comply with the settlement agreement, we conclude that Respondent's violations herein can be remedied through the use of traditional remedies so as to erase the effects of these unfair labor practices and insure the holding of a fair election. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the 8(a)(5) allegations of the complaint. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby or- ders that Respondent Roy Thomas and James Thomas, d/b/a Thomas Markets, Maryville, Missouri, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's' recommended Order, as modified herein. At the end of paragraph 2(a) add the words "together with interest as proscribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 71'6." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE E. DIXON, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, (61 Stat. 136), herein called the Act, was heard at Maryville, Missouri, on November 19, 1970. On November 12, 1969, Retail Store Employees Local No. 782, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, herein called the Union, filed an RC petition (17-RC-6247) involving Respondent's Maryville store. Thereafter, pursuant to a consent-election agreement, an election was held on December 11, 1969, which the Union lost. On December 18, 1969, the Union filed objections. On the same day the Union also filed unfair labor practice charges in Case 17-CA-4166 ' N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575, 614; T. C. Penney Co. v. N.L .R.B., 384 F.2d 479, 485-486 (C A. 10). 3 The charge m this case was filed on December 18, 1969, and alleged that Respondent engaged in activity to dissipate the Union's majority prior to that time . The settlement notice stated that Respondent was notifying its employees that it would not interrogate its employees concerning union activities or in any other manner interfere with its employees ' Section 7 rights. 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which were served on that date. Additional charges were filed and served on March 11, 1970. Thereupon, on March 11, 1970, Respondent and the Union entered into an agreement with the Regional Director's ap- proval to void and set aside the election and provide for a second election which was scheduled for July 9, 1970. At the same time the aforesaid unfair labor practice charges in Case 17-CA-4166 were also disposed of by agreement of all the parties and the posting of a notice by Respondent. Then on June 29, 1970, further unfair labor practice charges were again filed against Respondent by the Union under Case 17-CA-4349 alleging certain 8(a)(1) conduct by Respondent to have taken place following the settlement of Case 17-CA-4166 and during the period that the rerun elec- tion in Case 17-RC-6247 were still pending. In these circum- stances the Union alleged that a free election was impossible and asked that a bargaining order be issued. Accordingly, on July 1, 1970, the Regional Director canceled the pending rerun election and on August 26, 1970, withdrew his approval of the unfair labor practice settlement agreement referred to above. On September 10, 1970, the Regional Director issued his report on the Union's two objections to the election, overrul- ing 1 (an allegation of a grant of benefit to an employee as having "occurred outside the critical preelection period") but finding that allegation 2 (that certain alleged interrogation by the store manager "raised issues of fact and law") required a hearing. He therefore ordered the matters covered in Objec- tion 2 in Case 17-RC-6247 be consolidated with the Con- solidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing in Cases 17-CA- 4166 and 17-CA-4349, previously issued by him on August 27, 1970, on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel and the Board) for hearing by a Trial Examiner. He further ordered that after issuance of the Trial Examiner's Decision, Case 17-RC-6247 "shall be severed and remanded by the Trial Examiner to the ... Regional Director for ultimate decision on objection 2." The consolidated complaint, as amended, alleged in sub- stance that Respondent through its store manager engaged in various coercive and illegal interrogations of employees con- cerning their union activities and sympathies, failed to take or took certain illegal wage actions and refused to bargain with the Union as the duly designated collective-bargaining agent of an appropriate unit of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. In its duly filed answer Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record including my observation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs filed by Respondent and the General Counsel, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS The Respondent is a partnership operating several grocery markets at various locations in the State of Missouri, includ- ing one at Maryville, Missouri (the only facility directly in- volved herein), where it is engaged in the retail sale of grocer- ies. Respondent's annual gross volume of business is in excess of $500,000 and it annually purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers located outside the State of Missouri. At all times material herein Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION At all times material Retail Store Employees Local No. 782, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On October 23, 1969, nine of Respondent's Maryville em- ployees attended a meeting with union representative Charles Spangler at which they signed a petition authorizing the Union to represent them "for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, respecting rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.... " The following day Spangler hand delivered the following letter addressed to John Kieser, the manager of Respondent's Maryville store: Please be advised as of October 23, 1969, the following named employees have joined the Retail Store Em- ployees Union, Local 782, R. C. I. A., AFL-CIO, and comprise the Union's organizing committee at the Thomas Market in Maryville: Dave Staples Steve Wilson Phillip Dougan Dave Wohlford Lester Keith Mary Jane Thompson Mildred Schieber Ruth Van Fosson Paul M. Lynch Please be advised that any action on your part or the part of any of your supervisors to interfere with your em- ployees' rights to organize as guaranteed them by Sec- tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act will force this Union to take appropriate action to safeguard the rights of your employees. Please acknowledge this letter. According to Spangler's undenied and credited testimony Kieser read the letter and said he understood it. According to Spangler's further undenied and credited testimony Kieser also said that the "employees didn 't need a union and that he would not negotiate a contract." In the meantime Spangler had made a photostatic copy of the employees ' petition and had given it to Dave Staples, one of the petition signers. On November 3 Staples returned the petition to Spangler with three additional employee signa- tures on it. Spangler immediately sent the following com- munication to Respondent:' Please be advised that as of November 3, 1969, the fol- lowing named employees are members of the Retail Store Employees Union ,, Local 782 , R.C.I.A., AFL- CIO, and comprise the Union 's organizing committee at the Thomas Market in Maryville, Missouri: Dave Staples Mildred Schieber Steve Wilson Ruth Van Fosson Phillip Dougan Ronald Dew Dave Wohlford Mike Null Paul M . Lynch Mike Merrick Lester Keith Mary Jane Thompson Please be advised that any action on your part or any of your supervisors to interfere with your employees' rights to organize , as guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, will force this Union to take appropriate action to safeguard the rights of your employees. ' The communication, received in evidence by way of stipulation, was described as a telegram notwithstanding that it is written on the letterhead of the Union and appears to be in the form of a letter. That it was a telegram is apparent from Respondent's letter of November 12 to the Union as will appear. THOMAS MARKETS 373 Inasmuch as a majority of your employees, exclusive of your meatcutters and supervisors, have designated this Union to be their bargaining agent, you are hereby re- quested to recognize Retail Store Employees Union, Lo- cal 782, today as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees referred to above with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment. You are further requested to meet with the undersigned at a time and place that is mutually convenient, at which time we will prove our majority representation, after which we demand negotiations begin immediately for a labor agreement. Please contact the undersigned at 1 West Linwood, Kan- sas City, Missouri, 64111 (Telephone: LOgan 1-8472) to arrange the first negotiation session. By letter to the Union dated November 12, 1969, Respond- ent declined to recognize the Union as follows: We represent Mr. Ray Thomas and Mr. James Thomas, d/b/a Thomas Markets. Reference is made to your tele- gram, dated November 3, 1969, reference request of Re- tail Stores Employees Union Local No. 782 to be recog- nized as the bargaining representative for the employees, exclusive of meatcutters and supervisors, of the Thomas Market, Maryville, Missouri. Please be advised that the Employer declines to recog- nize Retail Stores Employees Union Local No. 782 as their bargaining representative for the reason that the Employer desires the matter of representation be deter- mined under the provisions of Section 9(c)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act and that you file your petition for certification with the National Labor Rela- tions Board. As shown in the section entitled Statement of the Case, on November 12 the Union filed a representation petition in 17-RC-6247 seeking certification as the bargaining agent of Respondent's employees. Thereafter as shown, a consent election agreement was entered into and approved on November 26, 1969, by the Regional Director describing a bargaining unit which I find to be an appropriate unit within the meaning of the Act that included "all full-time and regu- lar part-time employees at the Employer's Maryville, Mis- souri retail store" and excluded "all office clerical employees, store manager, meat department employees and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act." Pursuant to the consent agreement an election was held on December 11, 1969, which the Union lost by a vote of 10 to 7 with 2 challenged ballots. Interrogation In the meantime starting right after union representative Spangler made his initial contact with Store Manager Kieser certain coercive conduct by Kieser occurred which led to the filing of objections by the Union to the results of the election and its being set aside. In this connection the undenied and credited testimony shows the following: Steven Wilson a full-time employee, whose time was divided between meat cutting and general store clerk, testified that about a week after he signed the union petition Store Manager Kieser came to the meat de- partment and asked him what the Union had promised him. David Staples testified that on the day after he signed the petition, right after union agent Spangler had delivered his first letter to Kieser, the latter called Staples into the office and asked him "what was going on." Staples said that the employees "were trying to go union." Kieser said, "well, we will have to leave this up between you and the Thomases." Michael Merrick, a 19-year-old lad on leave from the Air Force-where he was trained for computer work, testified that "approximately a week to two weeks after" he signed the petition,' Kieser called him into the office,-asked "what was going on" and asked him if he had signed the petition. Mer- rick told him that he had. Kieser theta asked Merrick who had obtained his signature. Merrick told Kieser that David Sta- ples had asked him to sign. The day after the election Kieser called employee Mary Jane Thompson into the office and "wanted to know why (she) was in favor of the Union." Thompson told Kieser "First of all, John, I think it would be the fairest way, and, second, we will get a wage increase as we should ... I also will get to carry the group insurance which the store carries. ... "' At this point apparently Kieser offered to get her covered in the company policy which was carried at no cost to the employees. A week or so later she was informed that she was now so covered. In addition to the foregoing, Kieser himself testified that between November 18 and 29, 1969, he asked Phillip Dougan "what was going on about the Union."' Dougan told him "he had been requested to sign this petition to authorize union representation in the store.... " Kieser indicated that he "was a little surprised ... if this was his desire, and that there was nothing (Kieser) could do about it." According to Kie- ser's further testimony, Dougan ended this conversation by saying something to the effect that "he shouldn't have signed" the petition. Kieser also testified about a conversation he had with Hal Lyness about the Union during this same period, November 18 to 29, as follows: I asked him about his thinking or what his thinking was on the Union. He was employed about 2 weeks at the time , and he told me "I don't want to do anything to cause myself to be in trouble with my job or anything else." I indicated to him there would be no problem. I find that the foregoing interrogation by Store Manager Kieser tended to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in the Act and violated Section 8(a)(1) thereof. While the law does not necessarily require an overt demonstration of the coercive- ness of an employer's illegal conduct, the defensive and self- deprecating remarks of Lyness and Dougan to Kieser regard- ing their having signed the union petition amply illustrates the coerciveness of Kieser's interrogation. The Wage Increases The evidence shows that prior to 1970 Respondent's prac- tice was to give a yearly raise in Maryville at about the same time ("within a few weeks") as raises were given in its St. Joseph's stores.' The evidence further shows that general raises were given at St. Joseph on October 8, 1967, October 12, 1969, January 11, 1970 and April 12, 1970. The latter two increases, coming at 3-month intervals, were the result of a collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and the St. Joseph stores calling for quarterly increases. It was after entering into this contract that Respondent, according to ' He signed the petition on October 30. He claimed he read it before he signed it but did not understand it and thought that it was for an election. ' Thompson had been carrying her own insurance and in a previous conversation with Kieser he had told her it wouldn't be possible for her to carry both-that that it would be "no money-making proposition " ° Kieser testified that because "there were a lot of employees in the back room at this particular time" he closed the office door and had "a secret session" with Dougan. S For several years the Union had represented the employees in Respond- ent's St Joseph stores. 374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD partner James Thomas' testimony, decided that Maryville increases would be granted at 6-month intervals instead of 3-month, intervals as in the St. Joseph stores. The reason for failure to continue the Maryville increases on the St. Joseph pattern, according to Thomas, was that the smaller country stores like Maryville were not set up to handle the bookkeep- ing necessary to implement, quarterly raises. The evidence further shows that in late October 1969, a raise was given to the Maryville employees. The next (and last raise as of the time of'the. hearing) was not given to the Maryville employees until Jwd,1, 1970. James Thomas tes- tified that the Maryville employees would have received an increase in April 1970 "if ithad not been for the election and the subsequent labor dispute"'that ensued. According to Thomas, on the advice olocal counsel who was then advising him, he was afraid to give an increase at Maryville in April 1970 because of the "restriction" (i.e., the settlement notice in the first unfair labor.practice case which was currently being posted) he was under and felt they could do nothing until they found out where they stood. The complaint alleged that Respondent's failure to grant wage increases to the Maryville employees on January 1 Land April 12, 1970, "in accordance with its past practice" vis-a- vis the St. Joseph stores, and that the granting of the June 1 increase "at a time when the second or rerun election .. „had been agreed upon by Respondent" at the Regional Director's discretion (all occurring as changes in its wage increase policy) violated the settlement agreement in the first unfair labor practice case (17-CA-4166) and, together with :the aforementioned interrogation violated Section 8(a)(1) ofithe Act. In his brief the General Counsel claims that "sincelthe matter has been fully litigated, it is respectfully submitted that the Trial Examiner should find the dates of actual viola- tions concerning wage increases are April, June, and October 1970. The General Counsel also states in his brief: The record in the instant case shows that the Respond- ent had a policy that if followed would have resulted in wage increases for employees every 6 months and that the policy was not followed because of the union cam- paign and subsequent labor dispute. By its conduct the Respondent not only violated 8(a)(1) by restraining and coercing the employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, but in withholding scheduled increases dis- criminated against them in regard to a term or condition of employment which discouraged their membership in the Union, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. The General Counsel further states that although the, com- plaint does not allege a violation of Section 8(a)(3) in this respect he contends that being fully litigated such a finding is permissible and cites J. J. Newberry, 183 NLRB No. 69, footnote 14, of the Board approved Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. There is no question that on Respondent's own admission the failure to grant an increase in April 1970 to the Maryville employees for the reason stated was a violation of the Act. I so find. However, I would not go so far as to find that Re- spondent was obligated to make quarterly increases at Mary- ville because such were agreed to in the collective-bargaining agreement at St. Joseph. Nor would I find that the June 1 increase was an additional violation of the Act. As I see it, that increase was simply a delayed increase that was due in April which already has been found to have been illegal. As for the General Counsel's request that I also find the failure to grant the April increase a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, since it was not alleged as such I shall make no such finding. However, as a violation of Section 8(a)(1) an adequate remedy requires that the employees be made whole for the increase they would have received but for the em- ployer's illegal .conduct. Accordingly, I shall recommend a make-whole order in this respect. The Alleged Refusal to Bargain There is no question (and I find) that, as of November 3, 1969, the Union represented a majority of Respondent's em- ployees in an appropriate unit of the Maryville store. I further find that Respondent had no good-faith doubt that such was the situation. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the unfair labor practices (in the circumstances of this case)' are "nei- ther so extensive in number nor pervasive in character that they warrant an 8(a)(5) finding or require a bargaining order t,to-remedy their unlawful effect," SchrementiBroR, Inc., 179 NLRB No. 147; see also W. T Grant Co., 177 NLRB No. 61; Arco Corp., 180 NLRB No. 5; Blade-Tribune Publishing Co., 180 NLRB No. 56; Central Soya of Canton, Inc., 180 NLRB No. 86; J. A. Conley Co., 181 NLRB No. 20. Accord- ingly, I shall dismiss the refusahto-bargain allegation. The Objections to the Election My findings regarding the objections ordered by the Re- ;,:gional Director to be heard by me have been noted. In accord- -'ance with his, directions I leave the determination of what ,conclusions and decision to be drawn from those findings to him or to th&Board. IV.,THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE` The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and '.,substantial relation to trade, and commerce among the sev- eral States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce in the free flow of commerce. ' While one can surmise that the Maryville employees were aware of the -connection between their annual increases and those put into effect at St Joseph under the union representation there, and also that the latest St. 'Joseph contract called for quarterly increases, there is no evidence in the record to support a definitive finding to that effect. So far as the record shows, apart from the well-known fact (in effect acknowledged by Respond- ent) that the period from the October 1969 increase to the June 1970 increase at Maryville was a period of rapidly rising cost of living and the negotiation of substantial wage increases all over the country, there is really nothing to show that the Maryville employees had any reason to expect an increase until October 1970. Nor is there any indication that Respondent made any announcement to the Maryville employees of a change in the policy of yearly increases to a policy of semiannual increases. Thus the failure to get the April increase certainly had a minimal coercive effect on the employees as of that time. This is not to say that as the relative circum- stances became known to the employees (as they were bound to do sooner or later) the failure to receive the April increase would remain as quiescent as it may have been at the crucial time in April. One other aspect of the General Counsel's wage allegations bears comment. With no evidence of preknowledge that Respondent was embarking on a semiannual increase policy (and even with such preknowledge for that matter) for Respondent to have granted the April increase would have put Respondent in the same posture that the General Counsel claims Respondent was in by reason of granting the June increase. The circumstances regarding the representation matter and the pending election were no different in April than they were on June 1. The obvious inconsistency in the allegations of the complaint in this respect tend to ameliorate Respondent's liability for its conduct in connection with the wage increases and lend some support to its claim of being on the horns of a dilemma regarding its Maryville wage increases. V THE REMEDY THOMAS MARKETS 375 It having been found that Respondent interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist from such action and take certain affirmative action I deem necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Retail Store Employees Local No. 782, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. Roy Thomas and James Thomas, d/b/a Thomas Mar- kets is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. Respondent has not refused to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. RECOMMENDATIONS' On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, I recom- mend that Respondent Roy Thomas and James Thomas, d/b/a Thomas Markets, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating its employees as to their union activities, interest, or affiliations, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion. (b) Withholding wage increases because of our employees' union activities or union matters pending with the National Labor Relations Board. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in the Act to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, including Retail Store Em- ployees Local No. 782 affiliated with Retail Clerks Interna- tional Association to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza- tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole the employees of the Maryville store for the loss of pay suffered by them because of the illegal with- holding of the April 1970 wage increase. (b) Post at its store in Maryville, Missouri, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix."' Copies of ' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the -Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. B In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Region 17, ,shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an order of the National Labor Relations Board." ' In the event that these Recommendations are adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT illegally interrogate our employees as to their union activities, interests, or affiliations. WE WILL NOT withhold wage increases because of our employees' union activities or because of union matters pending with the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, including Retail Stores Employees Local No. 782, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. ROY THOMAS AND JAMES THOMAS, D/B/A THOMAS MARKETS (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any- one. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 610 Federal Building, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Mis- souri, 64106 Telephone 816-725-2611.