Vic's Shop 'N Save

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 28 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Victor Wukits , d/b/a Vic's Shop 'N Save and Amal-
gamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, Amalgamated Food Employees
Union Local 590, AFL-CIO and Retail Store Em-
ployees Union, Local 1407 , AFL-CIO. Case
6-CA-7137
November 21, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On June 27, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Stan-
ley N. Ohlbaum issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and Retail Store
Employees Union, Local 1407, AFL-CIO, filed excep-
tions 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 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 briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lation Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that
Respondent, Victor Wukits, d/b/a Vic's Shop 'N Save,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, his agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
DECISION
I PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, ISSUES
STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding under the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (29 U.S.C. § 15 1, et seq., "Act" herein) grows out of
a charge filed against Victor Wukits, doing business as Vic's
Shop 'N Save, Respondent, by Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, Amalgamated Food Employees
Union Local 590, AFL-CIO ("Meat Cutters Local 590"),
Charging Party, on November 28, 1973, as amended on Feb-
ruary 20 and further amended on February 28, 1974. After
investigation of those charges under the direction of Hon.
Henry Shore, the Board's Regional Director for Region 6, he
issued a complaint on February 28 and an amended com-
plaint on April 18, 1974, bringing this proceeding on for
hearing. The proceeding was heard before me in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, on May 7-9, 1974, with all parties, except
Meat Cutters Local 590, which did not appear, participating
throughout by counsel and afforded full opportunity to pre-
sent evidence and contentions, as well as to file briefs which,
received on June 14, 1974, have together with the entire
record been carefully considered.
The chief issues are whether Respondent in November
1973:' (1) interrogated employees concerning their union af-
fairs, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; (2) refused,
and since then continues to refuse, to hire Margaret Flaherty
because of her union affiliation, in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1); (3) terminated the employment of Shirley A. Dzvo-
nik, and has since then continued to refuse to reinstate her,
because of her union affiliation, in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1); and (4) rendered, and since then continues to render,
aid, assistance , and support to Retail Store Employees Union,
Local 1407, AFL-CIO ("RSEU Local 1407"),2 including
improper inducement of employees to join that Union, recog-
nition and entering into a purported collective agreement
therewith as such an employer-assisted union and not one
representing a majority of its employees, and deducting from
employees ' wages and paying over to that Union initiation
fees and dues under color of a "union security" provision of
that purported collective agreement-all in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(2) and (1). Respondent denies all of these allegations
except that it admits it entered into the collective agreement
with RSEU Local 1407, which it claims was not unlawful
under the Act. Another issue, central to some of the foregoing
and requiring resolution here, is (5) that of the supervisory or
nonsupervisory status of Respondent's employee Thomas
Shaheen, who admittedly directly solicited almost half and
had a role in processing delivery of all except one of the
RSEU Local 1407 cards constituting the basis for Respon-
dent's recognition of that Union and its entering into the
collective agreement therewith containing the "union
security" provision in question.
Upon the entire record and my close observation of the
testimonial demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
II JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent Shop 'N Save, Rochester
Road, has been and is an individual proprietorship of Victor
Wukits, engaged in retail sale of food and related consumer
items at its only store, on Rochester Road in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. In the first 3 months after that store opened for
business on or about December 3, 1973, its gross revenue
exceeded $300,000; and during the same period it received,
directly or indirectly in interstate commerce from outside of
Pennsylvania, goods and products valued at over $30,000. I
find, as admitted in the pleadings, that upon the basis thereof
I Hereafter dates with unspecified years are in 1973
2 Name as amended at hearing
215 NLRB No. 25
VIC'S SHOP 'N SAVE
it is reasonable to project and accordingly further find that
Respondent's gross annual sales at said store will exceed
$500,000, and also that it will annually receive, directly or
indirectly in such interstate commerce, goods and products
valued at over $50,000.
I find, as admitted in the pleadings, that at all material
times Respondent has been and is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act; and that at all of those times Meat Cutters Local 590 and
RSEU Local 1407 have each been and are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent Victor Wukits, a 34-year-old qualified meat-
cutter, owns and operates a modern supermarket on Roches-
ter Road in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as a franchisee of
Charles Brothers who control the tradename "Shop 'N
Save." Prior to opening this supermarket, Respondent was
associated with a smaller Pittsburgh grocery store on Thomp-
son Road, North Hills, owned by his parents, with eight
employees; that store closed in March 1973. After prelimi-
nary preparations in October and November, Respondent's
supermarket opened on December 3, 1973, with around
55-65 employees' and has since grown to around 75.
"Shop 'N Save" is a tradename contractually franchized
out by Charles Brothers, the ' sole supplier of
respondent-as one of its 150-175 franchisees in Pennsyl-
vania , Ohio, and West Virginia-for "all the services that are
required to run a supermarket of that size," including not
only merchandise but also advertising and accounting ser-
vices but allegedly not labor- management relations services.
Merchandise is ordered by franchisees from Charles Brothers
electronically on a nonreturnable basis Although the discon-
tinued grocery store formerly owned by Wukits' parents did
not operate under the "Shop 'N Save" banner, but as "Vic's
Supermarket," Charles Brothers was nevertheless its supp-
lier.
B. Respondent's Recognition of and "Collective Agreement"
with RSEU Local 1407, and Events Antecedent Thereto
Respondent Wukits testified that on or about November 16
he received a letter from RSEU Local 1407's president Joseph
S. Sorbara (RSEU Loc. 1407 Exh. 6), wherein Sorbara
claimed that his Union "represent[s] a majority" of the'em-
ployees at his supermarket, claimed additionally that it al-
ready had a contract with "you" (i e., Respondent) relating
to "your" Thompson Road, North Hills, store,4 and that
"It is our desire, based on our showing of majority status, to
accrete this new store under our existing contract.' Please
3 On November 26, when Respondent extended recognition to and signed
a "collective agreement" with RSEU Local 1407, it had a total of 56 em-
ployees, of whom 44 were in the bargaining unit here involved
4 As shown above and established without contradiction at the hearing,
this small grocery was not owned by Respondent but by his parents, and had
gone out of business during the preceding March
5 Notwithstanding this claim of "accretion" in Sorbara's November 16
letter (RSEULoc 1407 Exh. 6)for a 55-employee store from an 8-employee
29
contact me at your earliest convenience so as to formally
resolve this matter and thereby avoid the necessity of eco-
nomic pressure." Although the union membership cards then
(November 16) on hand by RSEU Local 1407 (see Fig. 1,
"III,D," Infra) show that by no means did the Union on that
date (November 16) "represent a majority" of Respondent's
employees as claimed , nevertheless, after a telephone conver-
sation , Wukits met personally with Sorbara on the evening of
November 26-by which time additional cards had been sol-
icited for the Union, under circumstances about to be
described-and within a "nogatiating" period of some 2
hours extended recognition and concluded and executed a
3-year (November 26, 1973-November 26, 1976) "collective
agreement" with it, making no changes in the draft presented
other than the amount of employees' pension benefits. That
"collective agreement" includes a union-security provision
requiring all employees to join and remain members of the
Union in order to retain their jobs and requiring Respondent
to withhold from their wages and pay over to the Union their
initiation fees, dues, and assessments.6
Substantial, persuasive, credited testimony of numerous
witnesses of General Counsel' fully established that they, as
employees or about-to-become employees of Respondent,
were solicited to sign membership/bargaining authoriza-
tion/dues-checkoff cards for RSEU Local 1407 in November
(prior to Respondent's recognition of that Union) by the
person known to them as Respondent' s store manager,
Thomas Shaheen. It is unnecessary to detail their comprehen-
sive testimony on the subject of their having been thus en-
listed into the Union by Shaheen, in view of the parties'
stipulation that these (as well as other) employees' union
cards' were included in the necessary showing of interest by
the Union to Respondent as its basis for demanding recogni-
tion, and in further view of the admissions at the hearing by
Shaheen himself that (1) he personally solicited at least 18
cards (not counting his own); (2) he was directly involved in
processing and delivering to the Union all except one' of the
store not even owned by Respondent, it was expressly conceded by RSEU
Local 1407 as well as by Respondent on the record at the hearing that it is
not claimed that Respondent's supermarket was or is an accretion to his
parent's former grocery store, nor that any agreement covering that former
store of his parents is applicable to Respondent's store here
6 It is noted that this "collective agreement" applicable to Respondent's
Rochester Road store nevertheless by its terms purports also to cover, as
well, all stores "which may [hereafter] be operated" in no less than 10
counties as well as possibly additional "areas assigned to Local 1407" by its
parent International (GCExh. 2, Art I)-seemingly regardless of the desires
of the future employees of any such as yet nonexistent or unacquired stores
7 I e, Adams, Niekum, Scott, Kramer, Kernic, Jones, and Krzminski
(Scott and Krzmmski only, in relation to RSEU Local 1407 cards signed by
them in December, after the date-November 26-of Respondent's recog-
nition of RSEU Local 1407), all impressively credible witnesses. Kramer's
undisputed, credited testimony also established that Respondent's Store
Manager Shaheen supplied him with a half-dozen or more RSEU Local
1407 cards which he asked Kramer to use to solicit additional members
8 I e., excepting Scott and Krzmmski, for the reason explained in fn 7,
supra
9 I.e , that of Trpcic, the only other card solicitor here (except for possibly
a few cards solicited by Kramer at the behest and direction of Shaheen and
in his admitted presence), whose entire term of employment with Respond-
ent appears to have been limited to the card-solicitation period,
November-December (possibly January 1974). Trpcic's testimony is undis-
puted that he enlisted all of the substantial number of cashiers into the
Union's membership in the presence of Shaheen (who, according to General
Counsel Witness Jones, also instructed the cashiers as to how to fill the cards
out), to whom he then gave the cards Shaheen then turned them over to
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
36 cards here in evidence;10 and (3) the undisputed tes-
timony of union witness card solicitors, Trpcic, that the many
cashiers' union cards he obtained were solicited, signed, and
delivered to him in the presence of Shaheen, to whom he
turned them over.
Since determination of the supervisory status of Shaheen
when he enlisted employees into membership and solicited
their signatures on those cards is central to the validity of
those cards and therefore the viability of the representational
credentials of the Union, we proceed to consideration of that
question, postponing analysis of the arithmetic of the union-
card situation.
C. Supervisory Status of Shaheen
Thomas Shaheen-an energetic man whose appearance
does not suggest an ordinary grocery clerk-had at one time
owned his own grocery store and had then worked for Re-
spondent's father at "Vic's Supermarket" for several years.
After that store closed, he obtained a position with Respond-
ent before the opening of Respondent's supermarket, accord-
ing to Shaheen's testimony, in the belief and "thought" he
was going to be the "manager." However, beyond this, the
testimony of Sheheen-who since the advent of new Store
Manager Maccaglia in January 1974 has concededly oc-
cupied the position of assistant store manager-is hedged
about with much equivocation and smokescreen creation on
his part, in what I am compelled to regard as an elaborate but
unpersuasive attempt in Respondent's interest to obscure the
true facts and to denigrate the true nature of his position in
November 1973 through early January 1974 so as to make
more plausible and stamp with an aura of legality his conced-
edly well-nigh exclusive role in ensconcing RSEU Local 1407
in the store as the purported bargaining representative of the
employees.
An unusually solid and impressive array of highly credible
employee witnesses remained unshaken in their testimony
that Shaheen was introduced to them (or they to him) by
Respondent Wukits himself as "the Store Manager" and that
Shaheen accordingly gave them and other employees work
orders which they carried out as they would those of any
superior having authority over them.
Thus, Jo Ann Adams, a seemingly wholly straightforward
and honest witness, still in Respondent's employ," testified
firmly that when she was hired to work for Respondent
the Union Trpcic apparently allegedly at some time or other turned his own
card over to the Union directly
10 Additional credited testimony of General Counsel's witnesses Scott,
Niekum, and Kernic (as well as Dzvonik, as will be shown) and the weight
of evidence on the record as a whole (including upon that basis and also my
testimonial demeanor observations and comparisons, my preference for
those witnesses ' cumulative testimony over Wukits' denials) implicate Re-
spondent Wukits himself in RSEU Local 1407 membership promotion and
encouragement atop of and firming up Shaheen's solicitation and enlist-
ment. And General Counsel's thoroughly credible witness, Jo Ann Adams,
testified that when Shaheen enlisted both her and her brother Edward into
membership on November 10 Shaheen obtained the union cards from Re-
spondent's office
II That the testimony of such a witness, still employed by Respondent
employer and thus testifying at potential risk to the witness' job, may be
considered to have added reliability, see, e g , Wirtzv B A C Steel Products,
Inc., 312 F 2d 14, 16 (C A 4), Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304, 1305
(1961), fn 2, enf 308 F 2d 89 (C A 5)
(November 10), her supervisor, Bakery Manager Carol Nie-
kum, introduced Shaheen to her as "the store manager" upon
the opening of the store. The testimony of Jo Ann Adams was
corroborated by Respondent's Bakery manager Carol Nie-
kum herself (also still in Respondent's employ), who con-
firmed that she did indeed introduce or describe Shaheen to
Jo Ann and Edward Adams as "the store manager"12 based
on her own (i.e., Niekum's) having previously been "formally
introduced" to Shaheen by Respondent Wukits as "the store
manager." Another impressively credible witness called by
General Counsel, and also still in Respondent's employ,
Bruce W. Scott, swore that when he asked Wukits in mid-
December where "he got his store manager [Shaheen]," Wu-
kits replied that "Tom [Shaheen] was from the other store"
(i.e., Wukits' father's store), but added that "Charley Broth-
ers evidently didn't think he had enough experience to run
[this] operation"; and that until the new manager (Maccaglia)
arrived in January 1974 to replace Shaheen (who then became
assistant manager), Shaheen continued to open the store with
keys in his (Shaheen's) possession and continued to give or-
ders to employees (including over the loudspeaker system),
who continued to carry them out. Still another impressively
credible witness called by General Counsel, Respondent's
former night stock clerk, Norman R. Kramer, was firm and
unshaken in his testimony that when he went to work for
Respondent on November 12, Wukits instructed him that
Shaheen would tell him "what to do" and that accordingly,
throughout that month and December he carved out the
work orders which he received from Shaheen; and that other
employees, within Kramer's observation, also received and
carried out Shaheen's work orders. When Respondent's new
Store Manager Maccaglia reported in January 1974, he was
introduced as the "new store manager."" A further high-
quality witness called by General Counsel, Betty Ann
Kernic-also still in Respondent's employ and before that, ,
with Shaheen, in the employ of Respondent's
father-seemingly a supervisor as manager of the delicatessen,
department,14 testified that around mid-November Re-,
spondent Wukits expressly informed her that Shaheen was,
"the manager of the store" and that if she had any problems,
she was to take them up with "Tom [Shaheen], he was the
manager"; consequently, when she needed additional em-
ployees in her department, she so advised Shaheen and an,
additional employee or employees were thereupon provided
to her. Another witness in the consistent procession, Theresa
Krzminski, who had also worked for Respondent's father and,
who is also still in Respondent's employ, swore credibly that
when she filled out her employment application form "at the,
beginning of November," Respondent Wukits told her Sha-,
heen (whom she knew from the "old" store) was going to be
12 Niekum also testified that Shaheen even asked her to sign a RSEU
Local 1407 card, with Respondent Wukits standing by and instructing her
to put her (i.e., Niekum's) job down on the card as just a "baker instead of
bakery manager for union purposes," even though she was in truth the'
manager of the baking department (Niekum's card, if any, has not been
offered here )
13 Emphasis supplied
14 It is again interesting to note that , as in the case of Bakery Department
Manager Carol Niekum, Shaheen solicited Kernic into membership in
RSEU Local 1407. When Kernic, who knew and told Shaheen she was to
be the "manager of the deli," asked Shaheen how to fill in the card, Shaheen
told her to waste in just "clerk " She nevertheless wrote in just "Deli "
VIC'S SHOP 'N SAVE
"the manager of the store"; and that, indeed, when she re-
ported to work December 1, she observed employees going to
Shaheen for instructions and that, other than Wukits himself,
Shaheen was "in charge of [the] store." And yet another
completely credible General Counsel witness, also still in
Respondent's employ, cashier Mary Jones, swore that when
she went to work for Respondent on November 26-at which
time she was already a member of RSEU Local
1407-Respondent Wukits introduced Shaheen to her as "the
store manager"; that when she started ordering stock, it was
Shaheen from whom she took instructions; and that she, as
well as Respondent's 20 other cashiers, have consistently
been and still are under the direction of Shaheen, whose
orders (even such as "keep yourself busy") they heed and
carry out.
Even beyond this parade of General Counsel witnesses,
Elaine D'Amico, called by RSEU Local 1407 as a witness,
conceded that-although, according to her Shaheen was in-
troduced to her by Wukits on November 26 simply as "Tom
Shaheen," which I find difficult to accept-she, as well as the
many other cashiers, were not only directed by Shaheen in
stocking and arranging merchandise (part of their job), but
took "orders" from Shaheen until the advent in January 1974
of (new) Store Manager Maccaglia, who thereupon did the
"same thing" (D'Amico's testimony) as Shaheen had done;
and, indeed, that even since Maccaglia's advent she has con-
tinued taking orders from Shaheen as before, but as assistant
manager.
Of course, Shaheen also testified on this subject. It is neces-
sary to point out at the outset that for a variety of reasons
Shaheen's testimonial quality leaves much to be desired. To
begin with, he is a highly interested witness, seeking among
other things to protect or relieve himself from the onus or
scar of unlawful activity; and he demonstrated himself to be
patently motivated in Respondent's interest as well. On top
of this, he impressed me rather strongly as extremely shrewd,
canny, and astonishingly knowledgeable or cued-in on techni-
cal aspects of what is and what is not a supervisor in legal
contemplation within the Act's definition and philosophy.
Moreover, his manner of testifying was evasive rather than
direct and forthright; he appeared at times to back and fill,
and he was overglib and shifted ground fast.15 I was left un-
persuaded by his attempts to downgrade himself so as portray
his position and status at Respondent's large supermarket to
be at a much lower level than reason, logic, the circum-
stances, and credited testimony of a host of honest witnesses
convince me it really was.
Thus, although unlike any other employee except two de-
partment heads (the meat department manager and the pro-
duce department manager), Shaheen was on a weekly salary
of $200 (from the very start), raised to $225 within a month,
and although even according to Respondent's own witnesses'
version Shaheen exercised seemingly considerable authority
around the store over subordinates, Shaheen-who, as in-
dicated, was the sparkplug in ensconcing the
Union-modestly stated his position on his own union card
as a mere "clerk." I utterly discredit that description, which,
15 Giving this its seemingly most generous explanation , if one is needed
or called for, it is conceivable that Shaheen 's knowledge of English may be
imprecise to the extent that he may not always be clearly cognizant of the
distinction between knowledge and assumption
31
however, coming from Shaheen, perhaps affords some insight
into his mentations and knowledgeability vis-a-vis union or-
ganizational matters; even at the hearing , with all of his self-
denigration, Shaheen-conceding he is and has been since
January 1974 the "assistant Manager"-asserted variously
that prior to that he was no more than the "head grocery
clerk" or "head stock clerk."16
It is of interest to note that notwithstanding the key nature
of the issue of Shaheen's status and the zeal with which it was
litigated, Respondent incomprehensibly omitted to produce
any of its personnel or other records to shed light toward
resolution of that issue, or even to provide any explanation
for that glaring omission. Under the circumstances, it would
be unjustifiable to assume that had such records been pro-
duced they would have been helpful to Respondent's conten-
tions in this regard.
Shaheen testified that he took the job at Respondent's
supermarket-at $200 per week to start-"I [Shaheen]
thought [I] was going to be [the] manager," based upon what
Respondent Wukits had told him. However, according to
Shaheen, he was subsequently informed by Wukits that a
servicing representative of Charles Brothers, its Retail Sales
Counselor William Adams, had expressed the opinion that
Shaheen did not have sufficient experience for the job, so that
he was made "head stock clerk" or "head grocery clerk," a
position which, regardless of its title" (and whether or not
true) was supervisory in the case of Shaheen in relation to
what he was empowered to do and actually did at the store,
as will be shown.1e According to Shaheen, during Novem-
ber and until the opening of the supermarket on December
3, he unloaded truckst9 and stocked shelves. As he neatly
puts it, he also "showed" others how to do these
things-I believe the truth to be and accordingly find that he
directed, authoritatively told, and ordered others (as they
testified) to do these work tasks. In December, with the store
open and in operation, Shaheen says he did no more, except
for "breaking the new people in." But Shaheen was taxed
regarding such conclusory semantical generalizations, in or-
der to ascertain precisely what it was that he did, and exactly
what the "breaking in" process consisted of. Difficult at best,
16 In light of this testimony by Shaheen himself, as well as my adverse
impression of short-tenured, transient employee-Union Organizer Trpcic as
a witness, I discredit the latter's testimonial characterization of Shaheen as
merely "a stock clerk" the same as Trpcic, whose pay was $2 per hour
17 It is well settled that mere lob titles are not determinative of supervisory
status under the Act. "Of course, the important thing is the actual duties and
authority of the employee, not his formal title " N.LR B v Quincy Steel
Casting Co, 200 F 2d 293, 296 (C A 1)
18 1 rejected RSEU Local 1407's proffer of various other collective agree-
ments at other stores, which it insisted established that Shaheen's job was
not supervisory under the Act because jobs of the same alleged title as the
alleged title (at one time) of Shaheen's job were not supervisory under those
contracts The rejected proof would establish nothing of the sort. It is Sha-
heen 's actual duties , responsibilities , authority , and activities at this store at
the times here material, and those alone, which are determinative of whether
or not he was a supervisor as defined by the Act
19 1 am inclined to believe that Shaheen "unload [ed] the trucks"-as he
put it in his usual overgeneralized testimonial style-only in a metaphorical
or indirect sense, directing others to do so (at one point, he slipped in to
"show the boys how to unload and load the trucks"), perhaps himself assist-
ing on occasion to a degree, which would not denude him of supervisory
status any more that it would Wukits or any other owner who does manual
work on occasion or even regularly Performance of manual work is not
inconsistent with possession of authority over subordinates, which is the
crucial test.
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
impossible at times, to pin down-on matters, it is to be
noted, involving what he himself did and to which he unques-
tionably possesses the answers-Shaheen hedged and weaved
about, first flatly denying he ever gave any employee any
instructions, then modifying this denial (a denial not only
incredible but inconsistent with his prior testimony) to state
that he merely relayed on what Wukits "asked me to tell" the
other employees and that he (Shaheen) merely "asked" (he
once slipped into "told") the employees to do certain things.
Pressed then on the subject of what form his "asking" other
employees to do things took, Shaheen insisted straightfacedly
that he would do no more than "ask," giving as an example,
"How about straightening the candy up and dust it off." He
conceded, however, that the employees thus "asked" by him
"did it." (The foregoing elaboration is afforded as an example
of Shaheen's generally slippery testimonial style.)20 I do not
credit Shaheen's testimony that Wukits introduced him to
others only by name without more (formal introductions, by
a large supermarket owner, of an ordinary rank-and-file em-
ployee to many other employees, itself seems a strange thing),
or as "my head stock boy"" or as "grocery clerk;" and I do
not believe Shaheen's testimony-contrary to the heavy
cumulative testimony of all of the straightforward employee
witnesses , as recounted above-that he was never introduced
to anybody by Wukits as the "store manager," which Sha-
heen unpersuasively shrugged off as "lying." I do not believe
it was the employees who lied about this, and upon compara-
tive demeanor observations and the record as a whole I find
to the contrary.
When or within a week or so after Respondent's new store
manager , Maccaglia, came on the scene in January 1974,
Shaheen was designated as "assistant manager." it is
conceded that thenceforward Shaheen among other things
not only possessed supervisory status but was in full charge
of the supermarket in Maccaglia 's absence; however, it is now
claimed that Shaheen had no supervisory status prior to then,
including the period when he enlisted the employees into the
Union as described.
It will be recalled that Shaheen's starting (November) pay
was $200, raised a week (or perhaps a month, at the opening
of the store) later to $225, per week. When he was designated
"assistant manager" in January 1974, with the advent of
Maccaglia (whose salary was $300 per week), Shaheen's sa-
lary remained unchanged and he was not replaced in his
former capacity. It will also be recalled that union witness,
D'Amico, testified that when Maccaglia came on the scene,
he did the "same thing" that Shaheen had been doing (includ-
ing "showing" employees how to stock shelves and direct-
ing the cashiers ). Called as a witness by Respondent, Mac-
caglia-store manager since January 8, 1974-conceded
that he has "no knowledge whatsoever" concerning Sha-
heen's functions or status prior to then (including the
November period critical herein).
It is conceded that when Respondent opened his supermar-
ket on December 3 he had 55-65 employees, and that exten-
sive preparatory work was essential by the employees in the
20 Or, perhaps Shaheen's method of address to subordinates was unusually
considerate or polite-an effective or commendable characteristic which
does not render the "asker" any the less a supervisor or employer Auto-
cratic or overbearing manner is not essential to supervisory status
21 Shaheen , a grown man, seems anything but a boy
month prior thereto (November) to ready the supermarket
for opening. Even without the substantial testimony of the
employee witnesses which has been recounted above, I cannot
believe that a preparatory operation of this magnitude would
or could be carried out without Shaheen's actually having
supervisory authority as described by the employees; nor that
an enterprise of this size and variety would or could for over
2 months, including the busy year-end Holiday season , be left
rudderless and supervisorless except for the owner himself.
On this subject, Respondent Wukits denied that he intro-
duced or described Shaheen to employees or prospective em-
ployees as the "store manager."22 Upon comparative tes-
timonial demeanor observations and the record as a whole,
it is impossible for me to reject and discredit all of the em-
ployees' solid and consistent testimony to the contrary. I
accordingly must and do find that Wukits did indeed in-
troduce Shaheen to employees as the "store manager " It is
to be noted, moreover, that Wukits concedes that he "could
have very well" introduced Shaheen as the "grocery manager
over the grocery department"23 -an appellation consistent
with Shaheen's actual functions, responsibility, and authority
over store employees, sufficient to constitute Shaheen a
supervisor under the Act whether or not he was introduced
as or carried the title "Store Manager." This interpretation
of Shaheen as fulfilling the requirements of supervisory status
in November and December regardless of his official title if
any,24 is solidified by Wukits' own testimony that in
November he placed Shaheen "in charge of the grocery sec-
tion," which included not only all of the grocery clerks but
also all (about 22) of the cashiers, or close to all (i.e., accord-
ing to Wukits, 47 of 56 total) of the store employees; and that
"I [Wukits] told him [Shaheen] to direct the boys" and that
the employees did what Shaheen told them. With Shaheen
thus, by Wukits' admission, "in charge of the grocery sec-
tion" consisting in November of 47 out of the 56 store em-
ployees, Shaheen may hardly be considered to have been a
minor supervisor, but was, on the contrary, a most importarit
if not the major cog in the enterprise, second only to Wukits
himself.
Respondent makes much of the alleged fact that Shaheen
had no independent power to hire and fire. Even if true, this
would be unessential to supervisory status under Section
2(11) of the Act since Shaheen clearly was vested with au-
thority and exercised the power "responsibly to direct" em-
ployees in accordance with his own judgment, a hallmark of
supervisory status under the Act's definition. " It is well set-
tled that this section [2(11) of the Act] is to be read in the
disjunctive; any of the listed elements is sufficient for an
initial finding of supervisory status." Amalgamated Local
Union 355 v. N.L.R.B. [Russell Motors], 481 F.2d 996, 999
(C.A. 2, 1973) and cases cited.
Wukits, corroborated to a degree by Respondent' s witness
William A. Adams (a "Retail Sales Counselor" of Charley
22 Wukits testified, however, that he recalls mentioning to his present
employee Krzminski in the late summer or early fall of 1973 that he was
"considering" Shaheen to be his "store manager."
23 It is observed in this connection that Shaheen's salary is not only on
a weekly basis but is substantially in excess of that specified in the Novem-
ber "collective agreement" (G.C Exh. 2, sched A) for "Grocery Depart-
ment Head" ($3 85 per hour) for the specified 40-hour week
24 See fn 17, supra
VIC'S SHOP 'N SAVE 33
Brothers who assisted in the preparatory servicing of Respon-
dent's supermarket prior to its opening on December 3),
testified that prior to the opening of the supermarket Adams
expressed the opinion to and advised him (Wukits) that Sha-
heen was not equal to a job of the responsibility involved in
running a supermarket of this size, and therefore recom-
mended James Maccaglia, a young but experienced super-
market manager, in his stead. Wukits agreed, ultimately con-
cluding arrangements with Maccaglia to take over
management in early January 1974.25 This, however, leaves
unresolved the key issue here, which is the status of Shaheen
in November 1973. As has been shown, the employees them-
selves testified clearly and credibly on this; in contradistinc-
tion, Shaheen testified evasively and incredibly on it. As has
also been indicated, Maccaglia conceded that-not having
been there-he is unable to shed light on that issue. It has
further been shown that Wukits conceded placing Shaheen
"in charge of the grocery section," consisting of 47 of the 56
store employees, with express authority to "direct" em-
ployees, who carried out his directions. Respondent's witness
William A. Adams (the Charley Brothers "Retail Sales
Counselor") who assisted in or exercised overall supervision
of Respondent's supermarket opening preparations-sup-
plied corroboratory evidence of this through his testimony
that in November he told Shaheen that his functions were
the "running of the grocery department" and to be "the
supervisor of the help in the grocery department," and that
Shaheen would "supervise the boys as a head grocery
clerk" (changed on cross-examination to "chief stock
clerk"). Although I am not prepared to accept that Shaheen
was dubbed "head grocery [or stock] clerk" as thus indicated,
considering the fact that he was placed in charge of the gro-
cery department with express supervisory authority over the
employees thereof, comprising 47 of the entire 56-employee
complement of the supermarket, and the further fact that he
exercised that authority, with responsive subordination by
the employees, he was not only a supervisor but a most im-
portant one, with his authority exceeded only by that of
Wukits himself.
Upon the basis of the foregoing credibility and other con-
siderations and resolutions, I am fully persuaded and accord-
ingly find that Thomas Shaheen, who was vested with and
exercised authority responsibly to direct the great bulk of
Respondent's employees in November and December (as well
as thereafter), was a supervisor of Respondent within the
meaning of the Act.26
25 I discredit Adams' testimony that in November Wukits "nominated"
Shaheen to be his "head stock clerk" or "head store clerk" as not credibly
established, and as contrary to the substantial weight of the credible evi-
dence as described and found In any event, however, for reasons already
described, such an alleged designation would not per se rule out Shaheen's
supervisory status, which is otherwise amply established here
26 Cf International Association of Machinists, Tool and Die Makers,
Lodge No. 35 [Serrick Corp.] v N.L.R.B., 311 U.S 72, 79-81, Amalgamated
Local Union 355 v. N.L.R.B [Russell Motors], supra, NLR B v Interna-
tional Metal Specialties, Inc., 433 F 2d 870, 871-872 (C A 2, 1970), cert
denied 402 U S 907; N.L.R.B. v Metropolitan LifeInsurance Company, 405
F 2d 1169, 1172 (C A 2, 1968), N.L.R B v Swift and Company, 292 F.2d
561, 563 (C A 1), quoted with approval in Marine Engineers Beneficial
Association v Interlake Steamship Co., 370 U S 173, 179, fn. 6, Bedford
Distributors, Inc., 204 NLRB 509 (1973), Certified Foods, 188 NLRB 638,
D. The Arithmetic of the Situation; Resolution and
Rationale
It will be recalled that Respondent extended recognition to
RSEU Local 1407 and concluded a "collective agreement"
with it on November 26 as the duly designated exclusive
representative of its employees in the appropriate bargaining
unit. But if, as is well-settled as shown below, the union cards
solicited by a supervisor of the employer-and Shaheen, as
found, falls squarely in that category-are for that reason
tainted and not properly to be considered in determining
majority status, and, if there are sufficient cards in that cate-
gory to reduce the Union's representational level below an
arithmetic majority of the unit, the Union's representational
claim must fail, and with it the "collective agreement" nego-
tiated and executed on that basis.
Tables I and 2, attached as Appendix B and C, set forth
the arithmetic of the situation here, comprising my findings
in that regard, flowing from the finding of supervisory status
on the part of Shaheen.27
It is a violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act for an em-
ployer, in person or through his supervisors26 or other
agents, to enlist employees into membership into any union.
Amalgamated Local Union 355 v. N.L.R.B. [Russell
Motors], 481 F.2d 996 (C.A. 2, 1973); N.L.R.B. v. Park Edge
Sheridan Meats, Inc., 323 F.2d 956 (C.A. 2, 1963); Plumbers,
Local 636 v. N.L.R.B. [Detroit Assn. of Plumbing
Contractors], 287 F.2d 354 (C.A.D.C.); Desilu Products, Inc.,
106 NLRB 179 (1953). Union memberships, bargaining
642 (1971), modified in other respect 461 F 2d 33 (C A 7), Nitro Supermar-
ket, Inc., 161 NLRB 505, 511 (1966), Crimptex Inc, 145 NLRB 452, 454
(1963), enfd. 341 F 2d 576 (C A 1° 1965), cert denied 382 U S 862
27 This is a possible further reason-unnecessary to reach here-for con-
cluding that RSEU Local 1407 has failed convincingly to establish the clear
majority which it claimed here. As appears on the face of the union
cards-for one reason or another, not disclosed or litigated here (among
other reasons, possibly, because very few card signers were produced to
identify and confirm their cards, Respondent and RSEU Local 1407 relying
instead upon Shaheen and Trpcic-who obtained his card signatures in the
presence of Shaheen, to whom he then handed the cards)-the "affiliation"
of numerous of the card signers with the Union was withheld or not made
effective until December 1973 or January 1974, after the date (November
26) when the Union was recognized upon that basis of its then claim of
majority status. The contention could be made that a Union is unjustified
in insisting that it immediately and unequivocally holds as a member or
represents a person whose date of "affiliation" with the Union as bargaining
agent is expressly postponed or withheld to a future date Various reasons
may exist for an employee's postponed organizational "affiliation," includ-
ing, for example, his desire not to become a member or to be represented
until a future date, or until many if not most of his fellow employees have
joined, or desire not to pay dues until a future date, or to have ample time
to reflect, reconsider, or withdraw Such arguments and "sales pitches" are
even known to be not uncommon among union organizers If, as demon-
strated by the cards here, as shown in Table 2, cards in this category are
excluded, the Union did not, for this reason along, command a majority on
November 26
26 Respondent's and the Union's heavy reliance on Pangles Master Mar-
kets, Inc, 190 NLRB 332 (1970), is misplaced There the card solicitors,
meatheads, were at most "minor supervisors" (id at 336), with no participa-
tion in organizational promotion by the employer, the turning points of that
decision. Here Shaheen may hardly be considered to have been that nor the
situation that In November and December 1973 and January 1974, preced-
ing the advent of new Store Manager Maccaglia, Shaheen was Respondent's
number one supervisor initially over some 50 and later 75 employees. As
shown above, he was second in authority only to the owner himself, Wukits,
who to a degree himself promoted or encouraged the organizational activity
here
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
designations, dues checkoffs and authorizations , and the like,
so solicited and obtained , being tainted with illegality, are of
no effect and are to be voided . Id. 29 If the "cards" or other
credentials thus procured are sufficient in number to destroy
the Union 's "majority" at the time of the Employer's recogni-
tion and execution of the "collective agreement" based
thereon , the "collective agreement" also fails and is likewise
to be voided , with payments made thereunder to be refunded
Id.
It is apparent , in view of the findings herein and the arith-
metic of the situation as demonstrated above , that all of these
principles are applicable here.30
E. Additional Alleged Violations
1. Interrogation of and Failure to Employ Margaret
Flaherty
It is alleged that, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1),
since around November 17 Respondent has refused, after
unlawfully interrogating Margaret Flaherty, to employ her
because of her affiliation with and activities on behalf of Meat
Cutters Local 590.
Margaret Flaherty, a qualified meatwrapper, applied for a
job in Respondent's supermarket at the beginning of Novem-
ber, about a month before the store opened. Wukits told her
that Charley Brothers was doing the hiring, that her chances
looked good, and to return in a week. When she returned, she
asked'Wukits whether there was a union in the store. Accord-
ing to Flaherty, Wukits replied "that he didn't know at that
time" or "not that [I know] of," and asked her if she were
"union." She responded that she was a member of Local 590
(Meat Cutters). Thereupon, still according to Flaherty, Wu-
kits said to her, "[You are] not telling [me] everything" in-
dicated he knew that she had stopped working at her former
job-where she had been the Local 590 shop
steward-because of "union conflict" there. She denied this,
but was not hired. Several weeks later, the supermarket hav-
ing opened meanwhile, she telephoned Mr. Moon Fields of
Charley Brothers, who she had learned was doing the hiring.
Although Fields said he would call her back, he never did.
When she called Wukits a week later and mentioned she had
spoken to Fields, Wukits expressed annoyance and upbraided
her for having contacted Fields directly, and finally hung up
29 Although I have found Shaheen to have been a supervisor at the times
here material , even if he had not been such, Respondent's holding him out
to be such to the employees, as Respondent did herein, would be sufficient
to taint the union cards and the resulting "collective agreement" and to
constitute unlawful Employer assistance to the Union in violation of Section
8(a)(2) (cf, e.g., Amalgamated Local Union 355 v N.L.R B [Russell
Motors], supra NLR.B v Dayton Motels, Inc, d/b/a Holiday Inn of
Dayton 474 F 2d 328, 331 (C A 6 1973); Rochester Cadet Cleaners, Inc,
205 NLRB 773 (1973), Pepsi Cola Bottling Company ofSt. Mary's, Inc, 200
NLRB No 155,82 LRRM 1236, Niagara Frontier Services, Inc., 186 NLRB
769, 770-771 and 775-777; Des Moines Foods, Inc, 129 NLRB 890, 891
(1960), fn. 1, 296 F 2d 285 (C.A 8, 1961), as also would Wukits' own
personal involvement in card solicitation and promotion, as shown
30 In its postheanng brief, RSEU Local 1407 calls attention to the alleged
circumstance that Meat Cutters Local 590, Charging Party herein, had not
demanded recognition Assuming that to be true, it is wholly irrelevant The
Act does not provide open season to employers to enter into "collective
agreements" with minority unions, with or without union security provi-
sions, just because no other union is clamoring for recognition Cf CH.
Heist Corp, 186 NLRB 355 (1970)
on her. Perhaps a week or so later she again called the store,
this time in response to an advertisement for night stocker,
but was told by Mrs. Wukits that the job was for a man. This
(allowing for considerable apparent confusion as to dates and
possibly also time sequences) is the gist of Mr. Flaherty's
testimony.
Moon Fields of Charley Brothers, called by Respondent,
testified that he was indeed involved in hiring meat personnel
for Respondent's supermarket, since he is among other things
a meat supervisor for Charley Brothers. According to Fields,
after screening some 20-24 applications, he selected 4 candi-
dates for interview for the meat packing or wrapping jobs and
requested Wukits to arrange the interviews that week. During
the same week, he received a telephone call from Mr. Flah-
erty; according to him, he set up an interview for her but she
did not show up. He then recommended two of the four he
interviewed, and they were hired by Wukits, who also hired
two others whom Fields had not interviewed. Asked whether
Wukits ever mentioned to him any union activity on Flaher-
ty's part, Fields' response was, "Not to my knowledge."
Wukits essentially corroborated Fields' account, as well as
portions of Flaherty's. Wukits added that Flaherty was not
one of the four recommended by Fields for interview. Wukits
denies he asked Flaherty anything about union membership
or activities, or that she mentioned these, or that either of the
subjects ever came up. He frankly concedes, however, that he
was aware that there had been labor conflict and picketing at
Flaherty's previous place of employment, but insists he was
unaware of any specific involvement on her part, although he
was aware she belonged to some union. Wukits had hired a
meat wrapper before accepting both of Fields' recommenda-
tions, leaving only one vacancy, which he filled on his own
with Shirley Dzvonik who applied on November 19 with
seemingly good qualifications and experience." Wukits's
only explanation for not hiring Flaherty-other than appar-
ently having equally or better qualified applicants at
hand-is that he was annoyed at her bothering him at his
home about the job and at her having contacted Charley
Brothers directly over his head, so to speak.
On the meager proof presented, in my view it would be
unjustified, other than through pure one-directional surmise
and conjecture, to find or conclude that Respondent's failure
to hire Flaherty was because of her Meat Cutters Local 590
affiliation. The weight of General Counsel's proof simply
does not preponderate over that of Respondent. In this con-
nection, it is to be observed that Wukits' testimony is undis-
puted that he did in fact hire a number of employees (includ-
ing Shirley Dzvonik, although it is true she was later
discharged, as shown below) who were members of that un-
ion. It has not been established by substantial credible evi-
dence as required, and I accordingly do not find, that she was
interrogated coercively or otherwise in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Nor does the proof preponderate that she
was denied employment for discriminatory or other reason in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) or (1); or for any reason, if reason
be needed, other than employer nonantiunion-related prefer-
ence or pique-options open to employers when they hire.
31 Respondent subsequently discharged Dzvonik under circumstances
described infra
VIC'S SHOP 'N SAVE
Upon the record as a whole, therefore, I find the allegations
of the amended complaint concerning Margaret Flaherty not
established by a fair preponderance of the substantial credible
evidence
2. Interrogation and Discharge of Shirley Dzvonik
It is also alleged that Respondent on or about November
28 interrogated and discharged its employee Shirley Ann
Dzvonik in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
After filing application (Resp. Exh. 1) for employment on
November 19, Shirley Dzvonik, an experienced meat wrapper
and cashier, was interviewed by Wukits on November 21 At
the conclusion of the interview Wukits told her she was hired
at $1.70 per hour, going up to $2 within 60 days with the
coming in of a union. When Dzvonik asked if there was a
union yet, Wukits explained there was a contract with a union
covering a different store containing a provision that it cov-
ered future stores as well. On November 26 Dzvonik received
a telephone call from Wukits instructing her to report to
work on November 18, which she did. Wukits thereupon
introduced her to other employees of the meat department.
When he reached John Bendick ("Bendix"), a Charley Broth-
ers "meat counselor" who was there to assist with prepara-
tions for the opening of the store, Bendick exclaimed, "Oh no,
not you." (Bendick does not deny that he "might" have said
this.) The explanation for the exclamation is that, in his
capacity for Charley Brothers, Bendick had encountered
Dzvonik at other Charley Brothers-franchised "Shop 'N
Save" store known as "Homestead." Wukits having left, Ben-
dick asked Dzvonik what she was doing at Respondent's
supermarket, to which she indicated that she was starting to
work there. When Bendick indicated her work had been un-
satisfactory at the Homestead Shop 'N Save store, Dzvonik
responded that she was starting anew here. Bendick told her
to "forget that it happened, at Homestead Shop 'N Save, and
try to start out here." Shortly after this, Dzvonik was sum-
moned to see Wukits, who asked her why she had omitted to
include her employment at Homestead in her job application.
Dzvonik replied that the job had been for only 13 days and
she feared that the store would not supply a good reference.
Evidently accepting this explanation without demure, Wukits
then proceeded to ask Dzvonik if she had "union problems
down there" and if she had "taken the wrong
union-[Local] #590 over [Local] 1407." When she replied
in the affirmative, Wukits-continuing evidently to accept
her former explanation concerning her omission to include
the Homestead job in her application as insufficient in his
mind to warrant her discharge-said he would keep, her if she
guaranteed that she "would not vote for Local 590 over
1407 because [I] couldn't afford to have any union problems
during opening week of the store." When Dzvonik-a mem-
ber of Local 590-declined to "guarantee that," Wukits then
said, "Well, between the union problems and the problems
that [you] had with Mr. Bendix, [I think] that it would be
better if [you] didn't work [here]." She accordingly left.
On Respondent's proffer, there was received in evidence a
communication dated December 20 from the Board's Acting
Regional Director, Region 6, indicating that Meat Cutters
Local 590 had filed a charge (Case 6-CA-7082) on behalf of
several employees alleged to have been discriminatorily laid
35
off at the Homestead Shop 'N Save store, which had also been
accused of having "unlawfully assisted Retail Clerks, Local
1407 during the course of the organizational campaign at the
Homestead store." It was stipulated on the record at the
hearing of the instant proceeding, in connection with the
foregoing document introduced by Respondent, that one of
the alleged discriminatees at Homestead was Shirley
Dzvonik.32
Testifying as Respondent's witness , Charley Brothers
"meat counselor" Bendick-an unimpressive witness, in con-
trast to the open, forthright, and straightfoward
Dzvonik-provided a somewhat implausible variation of his
discnbed encounter with Dzvonik after she reported to work
at Respondent's store According to Bendick, but hard for me
to believe, when he recognized Dzvonik he asked
her-with seeming gallantry-whether she "wanted to give
it another try, [then] let's go to work," to which she said, "All
right." Instead of this, however, for some reason unacknowl-
edged at this hearing Bendick promptly dispatched himself to
Wukits and counseled him, "I don't think she is what you
want." Asked whether he spoke about the union to Dzvonik,
Bendick's answer was, "Not that I know of." Conceding that
he later had a discussion with Wuktts concerning Dzvonik,
Bendick professed at the hearing to be totally unable to
remember what was said.33
In view of Bendick's otherwise demonstrated excellent pro-
fessed recall concerning other matters and details, his alleged
total memory lapse on the subject of his discussion with
Wukits regarding Dzvonik left me incredulous and with an
adverse impression of his general testimonial quality. It is
noted in this connection that Bendick conceded awareness of
the unfair labor practice charges filed with the Board against
the Homestead Shop 'N Save store (although Bendick, al-
together incredibly, pretended not to know whether Dzvonik
was involved in it).
Testifying on this subject, Wukits had little to add to the
foregoing, except that he claims that when Dzvonik reported
to work (November 28) he informed her that he had signed
a contract with Local 1407 and that she was "covered by the
contract" Wukits denies that his private conversation with
Bendick included any mention of any "union difficulty" at
Homestead-a most unlikely omission in the circumstances
described. Wukits also testified, however, that when he spoke
to Dzvonik about her previous employment at the Home-
stead Shop 'N Save store, Dzvonik told him she had been
fired for "Union activities", that he then reminded her that
he had informed her that he had signed a contract with RSEU
(Local 1407) before he hired her34 and that "this [is] a 1407
store"; and that she then indicated she could not work under
the Union (i.e., RSEU Local 1407), whereupon-accord-
ing to Wukits, but which I flatly and unqualifiedly reject,
32 As the Acting Regional Director's letter indicates, he administratively
declined to issue a complaint on the above charges in that case on the facts
then before him
33 It will be recalled, as noted in the outset, that although Charley Brothers
provides a full line of services to its "Shop 'N Save" franchisees-as it
indicates, everything needed to run a supermarket-this assertedly does not
include labor relations counseling, although it does include accounting and
public relations services
34 This does not seem quite true, unless Wukits told her this before he
signed the "contract" or unless he called her later on the night of November
26 after he had signed the "contract "
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on demeanor observations-Dzvonik without further ado
simply "walked out," quitting her job. I fully credit
Dzvonik' s version , including her explicit denial on re-
buttal that she ever walked out of or quit her employ-
ment with Respondent.
While ordinarily Dzvonik's omission to include on her
employment application her previous employment, though
brief, at the Homestead Shop 'N Save would count against
her in reconstructing the true reason for her discharge, this
is not so here for no less than three persuasive reasons: (1) it
is evident from Wukits' dialogue with Dzvonik, as recounted
above, that Dzvonik's explanation for her omission satisfied
Wukits, who expressly told her he was willing to retain her
in his employ if she in effect forswore her allegiance to Local
590, which she declined to do, precipitating her summary
discharge for that reason; (2) it became evident to me that any
attempt by Wukits to bottom his discharge of Dzvonik upon
that omission would be pretextuous; and (3) Wukits finally
conceded upon record that he would not have discharged
Dzvonik because of her omission to disclose her previous
employment at the Homestead Shop 'N Save, and that he did
not discharge her but she quit and that he "would have had
no objection to her continuing to work for [me]."35 I have
already dealt with and reiterate my findings utterly rejecting
Respondent's contention that Dzvonik quit her job with Re-
spondent.
What emerges from the record as made on this aspect of
the case, viewed within the total frame of reference here
including appraisal of comparative testimonial demeanor, is
that the true and motivating reason for Respondent's dis-
charge of Dzvonik was her union affiliation with and previ-
ous activity for Local 590 and her failure then and there to
abandon that allegiance in favor of a minority, Employer-
assisted union . By his actions in interrogating Dzvonik on her
union affairs, as shown, and in discharging her under the
circumstances described for the reason found, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.36
Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, I state
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all material times , Respondent Victor Wukits, doing
business as Vick's Shop 'N Save , has been and is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. At all material times , Retail Store Employees Union,
Local 1407, AFL-CIO, named herein as "Party to the Con-
tract ," has been and is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
35 The contention that Dzvonik was never discharged but that she "quit"
was reiterated by Respondent when, in response to an inquiry at to whether
the discharge of Dzvonik was ever grieved or sought to be arbitrated under
the "collective agreement" (G. C. Exh. 2, p 6, art VIII, para. 2, by its terms
limited to "members of the Union"), the response was forthcoming that it
was not since "she walked out of the job."
36 It would also be a violation of Sec 8 (a)(3) and (1)-as well as
(2)-for an employer, to require or induce an employee, as a condition of
continued employment, to give up his own union and to affiliate with an
employer-assisted union Wukits' words to Dzvonik here are plainly sus-
ceptible of this interpretation
3. At all material times. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Amalgamated Food
Employees Union Local 590, AFL-CIO, Charging Party
herein, has been and is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. Assertion of jurisdiction in this proceeding in proper.
5. By Respondent's actions through its supervisor, Thomas
Shaheen, and its principal, Victor Wukits, in urging , inducing
and coercing employees to join said RSEU Local 1407, desig-
nate it as their exclusive collective-bargaining representative,
and execute to said Union wage deductions and checkoffs for
its dues and fees, and by recognizing and entering into and
enforcing a collective agreement dated November 26, 1973,
with said Union upon the basis thereof, under the circum-
stances described and found in section III of this Decision:
A. Respondent has rendered and continues to render un-
lawful aid, assistance, and support to said Union, in violation
of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
B. Respondent has been and is continuing to interfer with,
restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise of rights gua-
ranteed in Section 7, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
C. Respondent has been and is continuing to discriminate
in regard to the hire, tenure , and terms and conditions of
employment of employees, thereby encouraging membership
in a labor organization and discouraging membership in
another labor organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
6. By discharging from its employ its employee Shirley S.
Dzvonik, on or about November 28, 1973, and failing and
refusing to reinstate her since then, under the circumstances
described and found in section III of this Decision:
A Respondent has been and is continuing to discriminate
in regard to the hire, tenure , and terms and conditions of
employment of employees, thereby encouraging membership
in a labor organization and discouraging membership in
another labor organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
B. Respondent has been and is continuing to interfere with,
restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise of rights gua-
ranteed in Section 7, thereby violating Section 8 (a)(1) of the
Act.
7. Said unfair labor practices in violation of the Act, and
each of them, have affected and are continuing to affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
and should be permanently restrained and enjoined and oth-
erwise appropriately remedied.
8. It has not been established by a fair preponderance of the
substantial credible evidence that Respondent interrogated or
refused or failed to employ Margaret Flaherty in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) or (1) of the Act as alleged in the amended
complaint.
THE REMEDY
Since Respondent has been found to have rendered unlaw-
ful aid, assistance, and support to a labor organization, and
then upon the basis of the result thereof to have entered into
a "collective agreement" with said labor organization pur-
porting to be binding upon Respondent's employees, includ-
ing withholding from its employees' wages and paying over
VIC'S SHOP 'N SAVE 37
to that labor organization dues and other fees or moneys,
Respondent should be required to (1) cease and desist from
such practices or other invasions of its employees' rights
under the Act, (2) cease enforcing or giving effect to such
purported "collective agreement" and the withholding and
payment over of dues, fees or other moneys thereunder or
based upon cards or other authorizations solicited, procured,
or assisted by Respondent as herein described and found, and
(3) repay to its employees and former employees all such
moneys it has withheld from their pay, plus interest. Since
Respondent has been found to have unlawfully interrogated
and discharged Shirley Dzvonik from its employ, Respondent
should be required to cease and desist from continuance or
repetition of such practices, and to offer Dzvonik immediate
and full reinstatement to her former (or, if no longer availa-
ble, and equivalent) job, or if there is now none such to place
her on a preferential hiring list and offer her the first appropi-
ate job available; and to pay her backpay plus interest, to be
computed in the manner established by the Board in F W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB (1962). Respondent should be
required to make available books and records for the compu-
tation of all amounts due to employees and former employees
hereunder; and to post the usual notice informing them of the
outcome of this proceeding and of their rights. In other re-
spects (i.e., relating to Margaret Flaherty) the amended com-
plaint should be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant of Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the follow-
ing recommended:
ORDER"
It is hereby ordered that Respondent Victor Wukits, doing
business as Vic's Shop 'N Save, his agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
A. Cease and desist from:
1. Enforcing or giving effect to a certain "collective agree-
ment" or agreements entered into by and between "Shop 'N
Save, 184 Rochester Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania" (Vic-
tor Wukits) and Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1407,
dated November 26, 1973, or to any of its terms of provisions;
without prejudice, however, to any wage rate, wage increases,
vacation or holiday or sick leave period, hospitalization,
medical or other insurance coverage, or any other economic
benefit or emolument granted thereunder, or accruing or to
accrue to any employee or former employee thereunder or in
consequence thereof.
2. Giving effect to, or maintaining or asserting, the validity
of any membership application executed by any employee or
former employee of said Victor Wukits on or since November
1, 1973, for the purpose of recognizing said RSEU Local 1407
as the representative of the signatory or such application or
member.
37 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings
and conclusions, and the recommended Order which follows herein shall,
as provided in Sec. 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
3. Giving effect to any authorization executed by any em-
ployee or former employee of said Victor Wukits on or since
November 1, 1973, requiring or authorizing the "check-off,"
deduction, or withholding from said employee's wages and
the payment thereof to RSEU Local 1407 for initiation fees,
dues or otherwise; and return each such authorization card
or document, if in Respondent's possession or control, to the
signatory employee or former employee.
4. Directly or indirectly giving unlawful support, aid, as-
sistance, or preferential treatment to any labor organization.
5. Directing, authorizing, or permitting any supervisor,
agent, or representative of said Victor Wukits to enlist or
solicit, directly or indirectly, any employee or prospective
employee to loin any labor organization.
6. Encouraging or discouraging membership in any labor
organization by discriminating in regard to hire, tenure, or
any term of condition of employment.
7. Discharging, terminating, laying off, furloughing, sus-
pending, failing or refusing to reinstate or reemploy, or other-
wise discriminating or retaliating againt any employee be-
cause he or she fails or refuses to join a labor organization
unlawfully aided, assisted, or supported by Respondent, or
because he or she fails or refuses to withdraw from or repudi-
ate or refrain from membership in or activity on behalf of
another labor organization of the employees' choice.
8. Interrogating, in violation of the Act, any employee
concerning his or her, or any other employee's, union mem-
bership, affiliation, activities, or sympathies.
9. In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing any employee in the exercise of his or her right to
self-organization; to form, join, or assist any labor organiza-
tion; to bargain collectively through representatives of his or
her own choosing; to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection; or to refrain from any and all such activities.
B. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
1. Withdraw and withhold recognition from, and cease and
desist from recognizing, negotiating, or dealing with Retail
Store Employees Union, Local 1407, AFL-CIO, as the bar-
gaining representative of any unit of employees of said Victor
Wukits unless and until said Union has been duly certified by
the National Labor Relations Board to be such representative
following a Board-conducted election."
2. Reimburse each employee or former employee of said
Victor Wukits who has had deducted from his or her wages,
by "checkoff' or otherwise, under or in consequence of the
aforesaid "collective agreement" dated November 26, 1973 or
any "checkoff" authorization or otherwise, any and all initia-
tion fees, dues, and other charges, payments, exactions, and
moneys paid thereunder (or being held for payment there-'
under) on behalf of such employee or former employee, on
or since November 1, 1973, plus interest at 6 percent per
annum.39
3e See Amalgamated Local Union 355v NLR B. [Russell Motors], supra
The Carpenter Steel Company, 76 NLRB 670
39 See Virginia Electric & Power Co. v . N.LR B , 319 U.S 533,
539-541 ; Amalgamated Local Union 355 v N.LR.B [Russell Moto,, su-
pra, NL R B v Raymond Buick, Inc., 445 F 2d 644 , 645 (C.A. 2, 1971);
Bernhardt Bros Tugboat Service, Inc. v NL R B., 328 F 2d 757 (C.A. 7,
1964)
38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 Offer to Shirley A. Dzvonik immediate and full rein-
statement to her former (or, if no longer available, substan-
tially equivalent) position of employment, without prejudice
to her seniority or other rights and privileges, discharging if
necessary any person hired to replace her or subsequent to
her date of hire. If there is no such job currently available for
Dzvonik, Respondent shall place and maintain her name on
a preferential hiring list and offer her the first such job availa-
ble, before any other person is hired for or after such job.
4. Expunge from Respondent's records any and every entry
or notation to the effect that Shirley A. Dzvonik quit her
employment with Respondent on or about November 28,
1973, or that she was discharged or terminated because of any
misconduct, impropriety, or fault on her part.
5. Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board
and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll re-
cords, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records necessary to deter-
mine the amounts of any and all payments due under and the
extent of compliance with this Order
6. Post at its store premises at 184 Rochester Road, Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."40 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Board's Regional Director for Region 6, shall, after being
duly signed by Respondent, be posted by him, immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by him for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places in said location,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
7. Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken
to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the amended complaint dated
April 18, 1974 herein be and it is hereby dismissed insofar as
it alleges any violations of the Act involving interrogation of
or failure to employ Margaret Flaherty on or about and since
November 17, 1973.
40 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
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a full hearing before an Administrative Law Judge of
the National Labor Relations Board, at which all sides had
the opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence and
arguments, the decision has been made that I have violated
the National Labor Relations Act. I have accordingly been
ordered to post this notice and to carry out its terms.
The National Labor Relations Act guarantees certain
rights, among them the right to employees to select a re-
presentative of their own free choice, without interference
from their employer or any supervisor of their employer, to
bargain for them as a group with their employer if they wish
to do so; or, if they prefer, not to do so. The National Labor
Relations Board has decided that I violated this right of yours
by aiding and assisting in bringing Retail Store Employees
Local 1407 into the store to represent you. The Board has also
decided that I unlawfully interrogated Shirley Dzvonik about
the union affairs and discharged her for that reason. I will not
do such things again, but will respect your rights under the
Act.
I WILL NOT directly or indirectly give support, aid, or
assistance to any Union for the purpose of attempting to
have it represent you.
I WILL NOT directly or indirectly, myself or through
any supervisor or` agent, enlist or solicit any of my em-
ployees to join any Union.
I WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce any employee in his or her choice of any Union,
or of no Union, as his or her bargaining representative.
I WILL immediately withdraw recognition from Retail
Store Employees Union Local 1407 as your bargaining
representative.
I WILL stop enforcing or giving any effect to the "col-
lective agreement" which I signed with Retail Store Em-
ployees Union Local 1407 on November 26, 1973.
However, this will not affect your wages, wage rates,
wage increases, holidays, hospitalization, or other bene-
fits.
I WILL stop giving effect to your membership cards in
Retail Store Employees Union Local 1407, signed at any
time on or after November 1, 1973, and I will not recog-
nize that Union as your representative unless it is offi-
cially certified as your bargaining representative after a
secret ,ballot election conducted by the National Labor
Relations Board.
I WILL stop giving effect to any pay deduction checkoff
authorization signed by you at any time on or after
November 1, 1973, for payment to Local 1407 of any
union initiation fees, dues, or other moneys; and I will
return to you any of those cards in my possession or
control.
I WILL refund to you and all former employees, with
6-percent interest, all moneys withheld by me from your
or their wages at any time since November 1, 1973, for
the purpose of being paid over to Local 1407 for union
initiation fees, dues, or other charges; and I WILL make
my books and records available to agents of the National
Labor Board to compute the amounts to be returned and
to show that I have complied with this requirement.
I WILL NOT discharge, terminate, layoff, furlough, sus-
pend, fail, or refuse to reinstate or reemploy, or other-
wise discriminate or retaliate against any employee be-
cause he or she refuses to join any Union that does not
lawfully represent a majority of employees in a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining, or because he or
she refuses to give up membership in or lawful activity
on behalf of any Union of his or her choice.
I WILL NOT interrogate any employee about his or her
union membership, affiliation, activities, views, or sym-
pathies.
VIC'S SHOP 'N SAVE
I WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain , or coerce any employee in the exercise of his or
her right to self-organization; to form, join, or assist any
labor organization ; to bargain collectively through re-
presentatives of his or her own choosing; to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from
any and all such activities; except to the extent otherwise
required by a lawful union-security provision in a valid
collective agreement, if any.
I WILL forthwith offer Shirley Dzvonik immediate and
full reinstatement to her former job, without prejudice to
her seniority and other rights and privileges; and I WILL
pay her backpay, with interest, for any pay she has lost
since her discharge on November 28, 1973. I WILL also
remove from the store's records any statement or indica-
tion that she quit or that she was discharged for any fault
on her part.
All of you are free to join or not to join, and to be active
on behalf of any Union or no Union, as you see fit, without
any interference, restraint, coercion, pressure, or discrimina-
tion by me in any way, shape, or form.
VICTOR WUKITS, DOING BUSINESS AS
VIC'S SHOP 'N SAVE
a As stipulated . Excludes Shaheen because, as found, he was a supervisor
Includes Kernic, even though she appears to be a supervisor Includes Gid-
dens, who may also be a supervisor.
b With or without Shaheen
39
APPENDIX C
Table 2 : Recapitulation of RSEU Local 1407 Membership
Application/Bargaining Authorization Cards in Evidence
Date of Employer recognition and execution of "col-
lective agreement" with RSEU Local 1407 : 11-26-73
Employees in bargaining unit on 11 -26-73. 44'
Majority of employees in bargaining unit on
11-26-73 : 23b
Cards in evidence : 36°
Minimum cards solicited by Supvsr. Shaheen : 19d
Cards solicited by or in the presence of Supervisor
Shaheen : 35
Cards delivered to Union by Supvsr. Shaheen : 35'
Cards showing signers not affiliated with Union on
date of recognition : 14r
36-19=17, or less than a majority
36-35=1, or less than a majority
36-14=22, or less than a majority
Includes cards of Supervisor Shaheen and seeming Supervisors Kernic
and Giddens.
d Conceded by Shaheen; includes his own card
a Conceded by Shaheen, the one exception is the card of Trpcic
r Of these 14, 7 (Kramer, McElhaney, Kernic, Klueber, Dold, Hays, and
Kollmg) were solicited by Supervisor Shaheen, and 6 (Lightell, Ogden,
Palmieri, Simon, Kissner, and Schwalder) were solicited by Trpcic in the
presence of Supervisor Shaheen Of the 14 (i e., all but Trpcic' s) 13 were
processed and delivered to the Union by Shaheen
Count
No.
1
2
3
4
5
APPENDIX B
Table 1 : Employees Included in RSEU Local 1407 Showing of Interest
Upon-Which Respondent's Recognition Was Based a/
Employee Job Hired RSEU Card 1973 Date RSEU Aff. Card Card Recd. Card to Be Comments
(1973) Exh. No. Card Signed Date b/ Soli- & Del. to Counted or
(or Dated) citor Union by Not
Don't Count
Adams, Baker 11-10 1-35 11-10 ? Supvsr. Supvsr. x Started
Jo Ann Shaheen Shaheen work
11--23
Adams,
Edward J.
Baker 11-10 1-36 11-10 7 Supvsr.
Shaheen
Supvsr.
Shaheen
x
Kramer, Stock 11-12 1-34 11-12 12-73 Supvsr. Supvsr. x Unaff. in
Norman 14. Clerk Shaheen Shaheen unit pre-
12-73
McElhaney, Stock 11-12 1-38 11-12 12-73 Supvsr. Supvsr. x 1. Card
Charles G. Clerk Shaheen Shaheen identified
by Supvsr.
Shaheen
2. Unaff.
pre-12-73
Kernic, Mng., 7 11-8 1-1 11-3 1-74 Supvsr. Supvsr. x 1. Seemingly
Betty Ann Deli.
Dept.
Shaheen Shaheen a
supvsr. S,/
2. Unaff.
pre-1 -74
a/ I.e., RSEU Local 1407 cards allegedly signed prior to recognition of Union by Respondent on 11--26--73.
b/ From RSEU-Local 1407 cards.
J It is noted that "all supervisory personnel " are excluded from the bargaining unit by the "collective agreement"
(G.C. Exh . 2, p. 1, art. I).
APPENDIX B
Table 1 : Employees Included in RSEU Local 1407 Showing of Interest
Upon Which Respondent ' s Recognition was Based a/ (Cont'd)
Count Employee Job Hired RSEU Card 1973 Date RSEU Aff. Card Card Recd . Card to Comments
No. (1973 ) Exh. No . Card Signed Date b / Soli- & Del. to Be Counted
(or Dated ) citor Union by or Not
Don't Count
6 D'Amico , Cashier 11-26 1-31 11-26 (?) 12-73 Trpcic Supvsr. x Unaff.
Elaine E . Shaheen pre-12-73
7 Shaheen , Manager 11-2 (or 1-16 11-2 12-73 Supvsr . Supvsr. x Supvsr. c/
Thomas prior ) Shaheen Shaheen x
8 Zimmerman , Stock ? 1-3 11-15 ? Supvsr . Supvsr. x Card
John J . Clerk Shaheen Shaheen identified
by Supvsr.
Shaheen
9 Russell ,
G. Urben
Stock
Clerk
11-17 1-4 11-17 ? Supvsr.
Shaheen
Supvsr .
Shaheen
x Card
identified
by Supvsr.
Shaheen
10 Kueber , Stock 11-1 1-5 11-8 12-73 Supvsr . Supvsr. x 1. Card
Thomas W . Clerk Shaheen Shaheen identified
by Supvsr.
Shaheen
2. Unaff.
pre-12-73
11 Dold , Stock 11-1 1-6 11-7 12-73 Supvsr . Supvsr. x 1. Card
William D. Clerk Shaheen Shaheen identified
by Supvsr.
Shaheen
2. Unaff.
pre-12-73
APPENDIX B
Table 1 : Employees Included in RSEU Local 1407 Showing of Interest
Upon Which Respondent ' s Recognition was Based A/ (Cont'd)
Count Employee Job Hired RSEU Card 1973 Date RSEU Aff. Card Card Recd. Card to Comments
No, (1973 ) rxh. No . Card Signed Date b / Soli- & Del. to Be Counted
(or Dated ) citor Union by or Not
Don't Count
12 Kirsch , Stock 11-17 1-10 11-17 7 Supvsr . Supvsr. x Card
Ilichael J. Clerk Shaheen Shaheen identified
by Supvsr.
Shaheen
13 Abbott , Cashier 11-26 1-12 11-26 7 Supvsr. Supvsr. x Card
Sandra H. Shaheen Shaheen identified
by Supvsr.
Shaheen
14 Hays , Cashier 11-26 1-14 11-26 12-73 Supvsr. Supvsr. x 1. Card
Barbara J . Shaheen Shaheen identified
by Supvsr.
Shaheen
2. Unaff.
pre-12-73
15 kolling, Cashier 11-26 1-20 11-26 12-73 Supvsr. Supvsr. x 1. Card
Mary A . Shaheen Shaheen identified
by Supvsr.
Shaheen
2. Unaff.
pre-12-73
APPENDIX B
Table 1 : Employees Included in RSEU Local 1407 Showing of Interest
upon Which Respondent ' s Recognition Was Based a/ (Cont'd)
Count Employee Job Hired RSEU Card 1973 Date RSEU Card Card Recd . & Card to Comments
No. (1973 ) Exh. No . Card Signed Aff. / Soli- Delivered to Be Counted
(or Dated ) citor Union by or Not
16 rionroe , Cashier 11-26 1-21 11-26 ? Supvsr . Supvsr.
Don't Count
x Card identified
Pamela A. Shaheen Shaheen by Supvsr.
Shaheen
17 Spangnolia , Cashier 11 -26 1-28 11-26 ? Supvsr . Supvsr. x Card identified
Linda S. Shaheen Shaheen by Supvsr.
18 Giddens , In ? 1-37 11-7? ? Supvsr . Supvsr. x
Shaheen
1. Card
Henry S., charge Shaheen Shaheen identified by
9
Jr.
tark ,
of Meat
Dept.
Meat- ? -5 1-26 ? upvsr. Supvsr. x
Supvsr. Shaheen
2. Has indicia
of supervisory
status Cl
Card identified
Evelyn L . Wrapper Shaheen Shaheen by Supvsr.
20 Agnic , Meat- 11-19 1-2 11-24 ? Supvsr . Supvsr. x
Shaheen
Card identified
John G . Cutter Shaheen Shaheen by Supvsr.
21 Trpcic , Clerk 11-12 1-8 11-12 7 Trpcic ?
Shaheen
Only employed
Paul D. in pre- 11-12-73
sence
of
Supvsr.
Shaheen
APPENDIX B
Table 1: Employees Included in RSEU Local 1407 Showing of Interest
upon Which Respondent ' s Recognition Was Based a/ (Cont'd)
Count Employee Job Hired RSEU 1973 RSEU
No. ( 1973) Card Date Aff.
Exh. Card Date b/
No. Signed
(or
Dated)
22 Bauer, Cashier 11-26 1-13 11-26 ?
Paula J.
23 Kantz, Cashier 11-26 1-15 11-26 ?
Patricia R.
24 Kircher, Cashier 11-26 1-17 11-26 ?
Sharon L.
25 Lightell Cashier 11-26 1-18 11-26
Patricia A.
Card
Soli-
citor
Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
12-73 Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
26 Marra , Cashier 11-26 1-19 11-26 ?
Donna M.
27 Ogden, Cashier 11-26 1-22 11-26 1-74
M. Marlene
28 Palmieri , Cashier 11-26 1-23 11-26 12-73
Shirley J..
29 Simon , Cashier 11-26 1-24 11-26 12-73
Judy A.
Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
Card Card to Comments
Recd .& Be Counted
Deliv- or Not
ered to Don't Count
Union
by
Supvsr. x Card identified by
Shaheen Trpcic
Supvsr. x Card identified by
Shaheen Trpcic
Supvsr. x Card identified by
Shaheen Trpcic
Supvsr. _ 1.Card identified by
Shaheen Trpcic
2.Unaff. pre-12-73
Supvsr. x Card identified by
Shaheen Trpcic
Supvsr. x 1.Card identified by
Shaheen Trpcic
2.Unaff. pre-1-74
Supvsr. x 1.Card identified by
Shaheen Trpcic
2.Unaff. pre-12-73
Supvsr. x 1.Card identified by
Shaheen Trpcic
2.Unaff. pre-12-73
APPENDIX B
Table 1: Employees Included in RSEU Local 1407 Showing of Interest
upon Which Respondent ' s Recognition Was Based a/ (Cont'd)
Count Employee Job Hired RSEU 1973 RSEU Card Card Card to Comments
No. (1973) Card
Exh.
Date Aff.
Card Date b/
Soli-
citor
Recd.&
Deliv-
Be Counted
or Not
No. Signed
(or
Dated)
ered to
Union
by
Don't Count
30 Kruse,
Carol
Cashier 11-26 1-25 11-26 ? Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvar. Shaheen
Supvsr.
Shaheen
x Card identified by
Trpcic
31 Cubrney ,
Kathleen A.
Cashier 11-26 1-26 11-26 ? Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
Supvsr.
Shaheen
x Card identified by
Trpcic
32 Driscoll,
Patricia F.
Cashier 11-26 1-27 11-26 ? Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
Supvsr.
Shaheen
x Card identified by
Trpcic
33 Whitmer,
Patricia C.
Cashier , 11-26 1-29 11-26 ? Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
Supvsr.
Shaheen
x Card identified by
Trpcic
34 Rohsner,
Genevieve L.
Cashier 11-26 1-30 11-26 ? Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
Supvsr.
Shaheen
x Card identified by
Trpcic
35 Kissner,
Rita M.
Cashier 11-26 1-32 11-26 12-73 Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvar. Shaheen
Supvsr.
Shaheen
x 1.Card identified by
Trpcic
2.Unaff. pre-12-73
36 Schwalder,
Rosemarie H.
Cashier 11-26 1-33 11-26 12-73 Trpcic in pre-
sence of
Supvsr. Shaheen
Supvsr.
Shaheen
x 1.Card identified by
Trpcic
2.Unaff. pre-12-73