NOTICE: This
opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive
Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
Albertson’s, Inc. and United Food and Commercial Workers Union Locals 4, 7, 8, 44, 99r, 101, 120, 135, 325, 367, 368A, 373, 381, 394, 428, 555, 588, 770, 839, 870, 1036, 1105, 1167, 1428, 1439 and 1442, affiliated with United Food and Commercial Workers International Union1
Albertson’s, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 537
Albertson’s, Inc. and Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco Workers’ Union, Local 119, Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC
Albertson’s, Inc. and Stuart Fishman. Cases 27–CA–13390,
27–CA–14469, 27–CA–14507, 27–CA–14925–2, 27–CA–15106, 27–CA–15106–2, 27–CA–15157,
27–CA–15433, 27–CA–15677, 27–CA–15677–2–8, 27–CA–15677–10–19, 27–CA–15677–22–25,
27–CA–15733, and 27–CA–15865
September 29, 2007
DECISION AND ORDER
By Members Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh
On July 3, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Clifford H.
Anderson issued the attached decision.
Several affiliated local unions of United Food and Commercial Workers
Union (UFCW Local Unions) filed joint exceptions and a joint supporting
brief. The Respondent filed exceptions,
a supporting brief, and an answering brief to the UFCW Local Unions’
exceptions. The General Counsel and
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 537 (Teamsters Local 537) filed
separate answering briefs to the Respondent’s exceptions. The Respondent filed reply briefs to the
answering briefs.2 Bakery, Confectionery, and Tobacco Workers’
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions3 and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,4 and conclusions as modified5 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.
This proceeding involves the Respondent’s interactions with a number of unions that represent different units of its employees at certain facilities located in the Respondent’s Western Region and Rocky Mountain Division. The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to satisfy its obligation to provide relevant information to several unions at various locations on many occasions, and also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by instituting a unilateral change and by dealing directly with employees. The complaint also alleges a number of independent 8(a)(1) violations based on statements by certain Respondent officials or certain work rules that the Respondent maintained. Lastly, the complaint alleges that written warnings to two employees violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1). The judge found numerous violations, but dismissed other allegations of the complaint. He also recommended a number of extraordinary remedies. Except as explained below, we adopt the judge’s findings of violations and his dismissals but we substantially modify the remedy to be imposed.6
1. Complaint paragraphs 58(c) and 65(a)(iii)
Complaint paragraph 58(c) involves UFCW Local 394’s
request for certain information relating to a pending grievance about the Company’s
pension plan, including minutes of a meeting allegedly held to discuss and pass
an amendment to that plan. Christopher
Yost, an attorney working at the Respondent’s labor relations department in
Complaint paragraph 65(a)(iii) concerns Teamsters Local
537’s request for information relating
to a grievance involving employee Martin Tara.
The Teamsters asked for “copies of documents, witness statements and/or
supervisor reports upon which the company believes it had cause to discipline
Mr. Tara.” In response, Barbara Newell,
a
The General Counsel’s complaint paragraphs 58(c) and 65(a)(iii) allege that the Respondent unlawfully delayed, failed, and refused to furnish the “meeting minutes” and “witness statements” to the requesting Unions. The complaint contained no alternative allegation that the Respondent failed to timely inform the Unions that the requested “meeting minutes” and “witness statements” did not exist. Nevertheless, based on the complaint paragraphs, the judge found that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by “silent nondisclosure” to Local 394 and “delayed disclosure” to the Teamsters.
We reverse the judge and find that he erred in finding violations of the Act that were not encompassed by the complaint allegations. Under the standard set forth in Raley’s Supermarkets, 349 NLRB No. 7, slip op. at 3 (2007), the General Counsel must specifically allege that the failure to inform the union that requested documents do not exist (or the delayed communication of that fact) was unlawful. The instant complaint, which does not even mention the nonexistence of the documents, plainly fails to satisfy this pleading requirement. Thus, we decline to adopt the Section 8(a)(5) and (1) violations found by the judge with respect to the meeting minutes and the witness statements.7
2. Complaint paragraph 58(d)
On December 4, 1996, UFCW Local 394 President Tom Johnson
sent the Respondent a letter requesting on-going notification of new hires,
transfers in and out of the bargaining unit, employee terminations, and employee
leaves of absences affecting store 845 in
We interpret Johnson’s information request as seeking
notification of several kinds of personnel actions “within 10 days” of their
occurrence, and an on-going process for the Respondent’s future provision of
such information to Local 394. Regarding
the first aspect of Johnson’s request, we find that the General Counsel failed
to establish that the Respondent delayed or acted unreasonably in directing
Johnson to contact the store director in February. There is no evidence in the record showing
that any hires, transfers, terminations, or leaves of absences, i.e., the
triggering events identified by Johnson’s letter, occurred between December 4
and February 3 to warrant an earlier response from the Respondent. The judge attempted to finesse this
evidentiary problem by assuming that “the size of the bargaining unit is such
on this record that change is statistically inevitable and that the
With respect to the second part of Johnson’s request, the record contains substantial evidence that Johnson and Stewart worked together successfully regarding future, regular transmittals of the requested personnel data to Local 394. Johnson never complained that his dealings with Stewart on this matter were protracted, unproductive, uncooperative, or unsatisfactory. In fact, the on-going notification system that Stewart and Johnson mutually developed was promptly implemented and apparently worked well thereafter. Thus, we reverse the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s conduct was unlawful and dismiss the entire complaint allegation.
3. Complaint paragraph 69
On February 18, 1997, UFCW Local 7 requested information
relating to the remedy for a grievance involving employee Amos Varos, and asked
that the information be supplied by April 21, 1997. On March 5, 1997, the Respondent claimed that
the information sought by Local 7 was “confidential” to Varos, and directed the
The judge found that the Respondent’s March 5 letter
unlawfully imposed, by mistake, a precondition on the submission of the information
to the
The Respondent argues that it fully satisfied Local 7’s information request and that its March 5 letter did not impose any precondition (improper or otherwise) on the release of the requested information to Local 7. The Respondent alternatively claims that, in any event, any flaw in its March 5 letter was quickly corrected, the requested information was timely provided more than a month before Local 7’s self-imposed deadline, and Local 7 suffered no injury from the Respondent’s actions.
Unlike the judge, we view this incident as isolated and de minimis, and we do not consider it as part of any larger pattern of unlawful conduct by the Respondent. The evidence persuades us that the March 5 letter’s reference to approval by Varos was a simple mistake that was quickly and effectively corrected soon after the matter was brought to the Respondent’s attention. The March 5 letter caused little, if any, actual interference with the Respondent’s timely production of the requested information to Local 7 within the deadline the union imposed. Given these circumstances, we find no violation of the Act and dismiss this complaint allegation on de minimis grounds.8
4. Complaint paragraph 79 (other badges rule)
The Respondent has maintained a rule prohibiting employees from wearing badges and pins (other than name badges) at its retail stores, unless authorized by the store directors.9 On its face, this ban would cover union badges and pins of all types and sizes, would apply to all store employees during their nonworking time as well as their working time, and would encompass all store areas, including any break or lunchrooms designated for employee use. The judge found that the rule was overbroad and that the Respondent failed to establish any special circumstances to justify the rule. The judge concluded that the other badges rule improperly restricted employees’ union and protected concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. We adopt the judge’s findings and conclusion for the following reasons.
Like the judge, we reject the Respondent’s collateral estoppel and res judicata defenses.10 Our consideration of the legality of the other badges rule is not barred by the decision in NLRB v. Albertson’s, Inc., 17 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 1994), a case primarily relied on by the Respondent in support of its position. In that case, the Ninth Circuit denied enforcement of an earlier Board decision that dealt with whether the Respondent lawfully could restrict the wearing of union insignia in a particular location, i.e., the selling areas, as opposed to nonselling areas, of its stores. In contrast, the instant case focuses on the Respondent’s efforts completely to ban badges and pins throughout its stores at all times and to impose a company-authorization prerequisite that would impede the exercise of employees’ Section 7 rights. Thus, the earlier case cited by the Respondent is distinguishable from the instant case on its facts and necessitated a different legal analysis by the Board and the court.
We also agree with the judge’s finding that the other badges rule did not pass muster under controlling legal precedent.11 An employee’s right to wear union insignia while at work generally is protected by Section 7 of the Act, and an employer may not interfere with that right absent a showing of special circumstances, such as the need to maintain production or discipline, or to ensure safety.12 The Respondent offered no evidence in this case that the other badges rule was necessary to maintain employee production or discipline or to ensure safety in its chain of supermarkets.13 The Respondent instead relied on general testimony from Dona Pike King, its Boise labor relations department counsel, that “[w]e want our employees to have a clean, uniform business appearance so that they’re easily identified” by the customers. However, it is well established that a company’s status as a retail employer does not, standing alone, constitute a special circumstance justifying the proscription of union insignia.14 Thus, the proffered customer-identification explanation for the other badges rule fails to meet the Respondent’s burden of establishing the presence of “special circumstances” to justify the rule’s broad proscriptions.
5. Complaint paragraph 79 (no-solicitation rules)
The Respondent has maintained nationwide no-solicitation
rules applicable to its chain of supermarkets, including approximately 435
stores located in
The judge found that the legality of the maintenance of
these rules turned on whether the Respondent could show that it had an interest
under
In Lechmere, Inc. v.
NLRB, 502 U.S. 527 (1992), the Supreme Court held that an employer may
lawfully bar nonemployee union organizers from private property, absent
extraordinary circumstances (such as where employees are inaccessible through
alternative means). In the absence of a
private property right, however, the Court’s holding in Lechmere is not controlling.
See Glendale Associates, Ltd.,
335 NLRB 27, 28 (2001), enfd. 347 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2003). The Board looks to State law to ascertain
whether an employer has a property right sufficient to deny access to
nonemployee union representatives.
Nonetheless, it is the General Counsel, in the first instance,
who must show that the Respondent’s
6. Complaint paragraph 79
(confidentiality,
off-the-job conduct, and
other misconduct rules)
The complaint alleged and the judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining rules that subjected employees to immediate discharge for engaging in certain activity including the following: (1) disclosure of confidential information, (2) participation in activity described as “off-the-job conduct,” and (3) involvement in activity described as “other misconduct.”18 We agree that the Respondent unlawfully maintained the confidentiality rule, although on a different rationale. We do not adopt the judge’s findings of violations regarding the other two rules, and we dismiss those allegations for the reasons stated below.
Initially, the judge correctly observed that the challenged rules “are sufficiently close” to comparable rules found lawful in Lafayette Park Hotel19 and its progeny.20 Specifically, the Respondent’s confidentiality rule resembles Lafayette Park Hotel’s standard of conduct 1721 and Super K-Mart’s confidentiality provision.22 The Respondent’s off-the-job conduct rule is similar to the off-duty misconduct rules in Lafayette Park Hotel23 and Flamingo Hilton-Laughlin.24 The other misconduct rule is similar to Ark Las Vegas Restaurant’s catch-all rule 68.25
The judge also properly recognized that the Respondent unlawfully used its confidentiality rule to discipline employee Mary Ford for engaging in protected concerted activity, namely providing employee names to assist UFCW Local Union 555’s organizing campaign.26 We agree that this unlawful application of that rule can be used to inform the meaning of the Respondent’s confidentiality rule. The judge erred, however, in going further and considering Ford’s discipline as an element in his interpretations of the other, unrelated off-the-job-conduct and other misconduct rules.
The judge also erred by lumping the three rules together in his analysis. In Lafayette Park Hotel, the Board separately examined each rule at issue to determine if that particular rule crossed the legal line. Compounding his error, the judge then imported into his analysis of the lawfulness of the individual rules the “broader context” of unrelated unfair labor practices involving other rules. Lafayette Park Hotel and its progeny provide no support for the judge’s “broader context” approach. The Board in Lafayette Park Hotel found that two rules (one referring to false statements and the other pertaining to off-duty employees) were unlawful, but never used either rule violation as a basis for analyzing whether the hotel’s maintenance of other rules (including those regarding confidentiality and off-duty misconduct) violated the Act. In fact, the Board found that Lafayette Park Hotel’s maintenance of its confidentiality rule and its off-duty misconduct rule did not violate Section 8(a)(1). Likewise, we reject any attempt to find the three rules in the instant case invalid by bootstrapping them to other unrelated work rule violations.
We note that in determining whether an employer’s
maintenance of a work rule reasonably tends to chill employees in the exercise
of Section 7 rights, the Board will give the work rule a reasonable reading and
refrain from reading particular phrases in isolation. Lutheran
Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 646 (2004). Under this standard, the first inquiry is “whether
the rule explicitly restricts
activities protected by Section 7.” (Emphasis in original.)
the violation is dependent upon a showing of one of the
following: (1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section
7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3)
the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights. [
Applying these principles, we find that the Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining its off-the-job-conduct and other misconduct rules.27 Neither rule expressly covers Section 7 activity, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent has applied either rule to protected activity or that the Respondent adopted either rule in response to protected activity. Similarly, we do not believe that either rule can reasonably be read as encompassing Section 7 activity. “To ascribe such a meaning to these words is, quite simply, farfetched.”28 Employees reasonably would believe that these rules were “intended to reach serious misconduct, not conduct protected by the Act.”29 Therefore, we dismiss these allegations.30
The Respondent’s confidentiality rule is in a different
category. Although the confidentiality
rule does not expressly cover Section 7 activity, and no evidence exists that
the Respondent adopted this rule in response to protected activity, there is
sufficient evidence showing that the Respondent applied the rule to restrict an
employee’s exercise of her Section 7 rights.
The judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent unlawfully used its
confidentiality rule to discipline employee Ford for providing a copy of the
work schedule (with a listing of employee names) to assist UFCW Local
Amended Remedy
The judge’s recommended Order includes broad injunctive language, enjoining the Respondent from “in any other manner” violating the Section 7 rights of employees, based on the Respondent’s failure to adequately and/or timely respond to information requests involving stores in the Respondent’s Rocky Mountain Division. A broad cease-and-desist order is warranted only when a respondent “is shown to have a proclivity to violate the Act or has engaged in such egregious or widespread misconduct as to demonstrate a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental statutory rights.” Hickmott Foods, Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). In our view, the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Unions’ information requests that were routinely generated in the course of investigating and pursuing grievances, while unlawful and a persistent problem, does not manifest “egregious or widespread misconduct . . . demonstrat[ing] a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental statutory rights.” Therefore, the Respondent’s misconduct does not meet the stringent Hickmott standard for a broad order. Accordingly, we consider a narrow cease-and-desist order—tailored to the Respondent’s history of failing to respond to information requests at its Rocky Mountain Division facilities and enjoining the Respondent from committing any like or related 8(a)(5) information request violations in the future—is the appropriate remedy in the circumstances of this case.32
The judge’s recommended Order also provides for special remedies that impose a series of extraordinary and specific conduct requirements on the Respondent in order for it to meet its statutory obligations to furnish requested relevant information relating to its Rocky Mountain Division facilities. The judge found that these conduct requirements were appropriate given the Respondent’s mishandling of many information requests and its failure to adhere to its statutory obligations under the Act. Contrary to the judge, there has been no showing that the Board’s traditional remedies will not sufficiently ameliorate the effect of the information request violations committed by the Respondent. In our view, the Respondent’s information request violations were not so numerous, pervasive, and outrageous that special or extraordinary remedies are needed to dissipate fully the coercive effects of these violations. We find that the special remedies directed by the judge are unwarranted and go beyond what is needed to fully rectify the unfair labor practices we find here. See First Legal Support Services, LLC, 342 NLRB 350 fn. 6 (2004). Accordingly, we enter a remedy as set out in the affirmative provisions of the Order below.33
Amended Conclusions of Law
1. Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 4(a)(3) in the judge’s decision.
“(3) Telling our employees that they may not discuss, support or solicit the support of other employees for the Unions when employees are off work, in nonwork areas or when they are allowed to discuss other nonbusiness matters among themselves.”
2. Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 4(a)(8) in the judge’s decision.
“(8) Maintaining an overly broad confidentiality rule that prohibits our employees from engaging in protected concerted activity.”
3. Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 4(c)(1)(iv) in the judge’s decision.
“(iv) Making false statements concerning relevant information requested by the Unions, and failing to provide such information to the Unions because we have destroyed it.”
4. Delete Conclusions of Law 4(a)(7) and (c)(1)(v) in the judge’s decision and renumber the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended
Order of the administrative law judge as modified and set forth in full below
and orders that the Respondent, Albertson’s, Inc.,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing or refusing to provide United Food and Commercial Workers Local Unions 7, 8, 44, 135, 368A, 394, and 1167 and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 537 (the Unions) with requested information that is necessary and relevant to their respective roles as the exclusive representatives of unit employees working at the Respondent’s following facilities: store 211 in Great Falls, Montana; stores 416 and 488 in Bellingham, Washington; store 954 in Blythe, California; store 1631 in Vista, California; stores in southern Idaho and eastern Oregon, and retail stores and Denver distribution center in the Rocky Mountain Division.
(b) Failing or refusing to provide timely responses to the Unions’ requests for information that is necessary and relevant to the Unions’ performance of their duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representatives of unit employees working at the facilities described above in paragraph 1(a).
(c) Making false statements concerning relevant information requested by Local Union 7 and failing to provide such requested information to Local Union 7 because the Respondent has destroyed it.
(d) Delaying or withholding furnishing requested relevant information to Local Union 7 because the Respondent disagreed with Local Union 7’s pursuit of employee grievances.
(e) Delaying furnishing requested relevant information by insisting that Local Union 8 obtain such information through dictation and hand copying of voluminous records at the Respondent’s stores.
(f) Instructing or suggesting to employees exactly what they should tell union agents about grievance matters, thereby interfering with Local Union 8’s grievance investigation, and threatening employees with adverse action if they do not follow such instruction or suggestion.
(g) Telling employees that we will bypass Local Union 8, their collective-bargaining representative, and deal directly with them to resolve their pay grievances.
(h) Telling employees that they may not discuss, support or solicit the support of other employees for UFCW Local Union 555 when employees are off work, in nonwork areas, or when they are allowed to discuss other nonbusiness matters among themselves.
(i) Disciplining or warning, orally or in writing, an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity by providing employee names to assist Local Union 555’s organizing campaign.
(j) Telling employees that it was wrong for an employee to engage in protected concerted activity by providing employee names to assist Local Union 555’s organizing campaign.
(k) Unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment
of the
(l) Dealing directly with employees and bypassing Local Union 555 by promising investigations and quicker resolutions of time-off-the-clock grievances if the employees furnish the Respondent with the information on this subject that they provide to Local Union 555.
(m) Maintaining an overly broad other badges rule that prohibits the employees’ right to wear badges and pins indicating support for a union, without the Respondent’s approval.
(n) Maintaining an overly broad confidentiality rule that prohibits the employees from engaging in protected concerted activity, e.g., providing employee names to assist a union’s organizing campaign.
(o) Announcing and enforcing a rule, which applies only to the union steward for the Respondent’s represented employees, that union materials may not be posted on company bulletin boards.
(p) Disciplining, warning, issuing a written warning to, or putting a written notice in an employee’s personnel file indicating that the employee improperly posted union materials on the Respondent’s bulletin boards.
(q) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Provide, to the extent we have not already done so, the information that was requested by the Unions on various dates during the period opposite their names indicated below.
Local Union 7 March 17, 1994, through February 6, 1997
Local Union 8 December 28, 1995, June 19–21, 1996, July 9 and 18, 1996, and March 21, 1997
Local Union 44 September 26, 1997
Local Union 135 June 25 through December 10, 1997
Local Union 368A September 3 through December 24, 1997
Local Union 394 August 8 through December 4, 1996
Local Union 537 October 4, 1995, through April 25, 1996
Local Union 1167 February 4 through September 12, 1997
(b) Offer to engage in good-faith bargaining with Local Unions 7, 135, 394, and 537 respecting alternatives means and methods for the disclosure of requested relevant confidential information before the Respondent may refuse to disclose such information to the Unions.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from the Respondent’s files any reference to the written warning of Mary Ford, including the March 20,
1998 memorandum, and, within 3 days thereafter, notify her in writing that this has been done and that the warning will not be used against her in any way.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from the Respondent’s files any reference to the written warning of Stewart Fishman, including the December 3, 1997 documented verbal warning, and within 3 days thereafter, notify him in writing that this has been done and that the warning will not be used against him in any way.
(e) Rescind and give no effect to the February 28, 1997
disciplinary policy providing for the automatic termination of employees who engage,
for the first time, in alcohol and tobacco sales to minors as that policy
applies to the
(f) Rescind the other badges rule for employees that requires company authorization for wearing union badges or pins by employees.
(g) Rescind the confidentiality rule which subjects employees to immediate discharge if they disclose confidential information or engage in any other similar act constituting disregard for the Company’s best interest.
(h) Furnish all current employees with inserts for the company personnel policies sheet and retail store employee handbook that (1) advises employees that the unlawful other badges and confidentiality rules above have been rescinded; or (2) provide the language of lawful rules; or publish and distribute to all current employees a revised company personnel policies sheet and retail store employee handbook that (1) do not contain the unlawful rules, or (2) provide the language of lawful rules.
(i) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at the locations indicated below, copies of the attached notices marked “Appendixes A through J.”34 Copies of the notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 27, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facilities involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, copies of the notices to all current employees and former employees employed at that location by the Respondent since March 1994.
Notices Locations
A
B store
211 in
C store
589 in
D Represented
stores in
E Nationwide
F store
1631 in
G store
954 in
H stores 416 and 488 in
I store
559 in
J Represented stores in southern
(j) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated,
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
Peter N. Kirsanow, Member
Dennis P. Walsh, Member
(seal) National
Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX A
Post at all represented Rocky Mountain Division facilities
Notice To Employees
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations
Board
An Agency of the
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
federal law gives you the right to
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
We will not fail or refuse to provide United Food and Commercial Workers Local Unions 7 and 394 and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 537 (the Unions) with requested information that is necessary and relevant to their respective roles as the exclusive representatives of unit employees working at our retail stores and Denver distribution center in the Rocky Mountain Division.
We will not fail or
refuse to provide timely responses to the Unions’ requests for information that
is necessary and relevant to the Unions’ performance of their duties as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representatives of unit employees working at
our retail stores and
We will not make false statements concerning relevant information requested by the Unions, and we will not fail to provide such requested information to the Unions because we have destroyed it.
We will not delay or withhold furnishing requested relevant information to the Unions because we disagree with their pursuit of employee grievances.
We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
We will provide, to the extent we have not already done so, the information that was requested by Local Union 7 on various dates during the period March 17, 1994, through February 6, 1997.
We will provide, to the extent we have not already done so, the information that was requested by Local Union 394 on various dates during the period August 8 through December 4, 1996.
We will provide, to the extent we have not already done so, the information that was requested by Local Union 537 on various dates during the period October 4, 1995, through April 25, 1996.
We will offer to engage in good-faith bargaining with the Unions respecting alternatives means and methods for the disclosure of requested relevant confidential information before we may refuse to disclose such information to the Unions.
Albertson’s, Inc.
Post at store 211 in
Notice To Employees
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations
Board
An Agency of the
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
federal law gives you the right to
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
We will not fail or refuse to provide United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union 8 (the Union) with requested information that is necessary and relevant to its role as the exclusive representative of unit employees working at our store 211 in Great Falls, Montana.
We will not
fail or refuse to provide timely responses to the Union’s requests for information
that is necessary and relevant to the
We will not
delay furnishing requested relevant information by insisting that the
We will not instruct or suggest to our employees exactly what they should tell union agents about grievance matters, thereby interfering with the Union’s grievance investigation, and we will not threaten our employees with adverse action if they do not follow such instruction or suggestion.
We
will not tell our employees that we will bypass the
We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
We will provide, to the
extent we have not already done so, the information that was requested by the
Albertson’s, Inc.
APPENDIX C
Post at store 589 in
Notice To Employees
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations
Board
An Agency of the
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
federal law gives you the right to
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
We will not tell our employees that they may not discuss, support or solicit the support of other employees for United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union 555 (the Union) when employees are off work, in non-work areas or when they are allowed to discuss other nonbusiness matters among themselves.
We will not discipline or warn, orally or in writing, an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity by providing employee names to assist the Union’s organizing campaign.
We will not tell employees that it was wrong for an employee to engage in protected concerted activity by providing employee names to assist the Union’s organizing campaign.
We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
We will, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any reference to the written warning of Mary Ford, including the March 20, 1998 memorandum, and we will, within 3 days thereafter, notify her in writing that this has been done and that the warning will not be used against her in any way.
Albertson’s, Inc.
APPENDIX D
Post at represented stores in
Notice To Employees
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations
Board
An Agency of the
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
federal law gives you the right to
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
We will not
unilaterally change terms and conditions of employment of the
We will not deal directly with employees and bypass the Union by promising investigations and quicker resolutions of time-off-the-clock grievances if the employees furnish us with the information on this subject that they provide to the Union.
We will not in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
We will immediately
rescind and give no effect to our February 28, 1997 disciplinary policy
providing for the automatic termination of employees who engage, for the first
time, in alcohol and tobacco sales to minors as that policy applies to our
Nationwide posting
Notice To Employees
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations
Board
An Agency of the
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
federal law gives you the right to
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
We will not maintain an overly broad other badges rule that prohibits our employees’ right to wear badges and pins indicating support for a union, without our approval.
We will not maintain an overly broad confidentiality rule that prohibits our employees from engaging in protected concerted activity, e.g., providing employee names to assist a union’s organizing campaign.
We wi