Amalgamated Meat Cutters

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 773 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS 773
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, Amalgamated Food Employees
Union Local 590, AFL-CIO (National Tea
Company ) and Harry Sabatasse . Case 6-CB-1612
March 24, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On September 18, 1969, Trial Examiner Robert
E. Mullin issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as
recommended in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provision of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
principles apply to the instant dispute between
Respondent Union and its shop steward Harry
Sabatasse over the internal workings of the Union.
The record shows that the Union and steward
Sabatasse had a difference of opinion over the
expeditious handling of a grievance against the
Company As the Trial Examiner found, it was
Sabatasse's impatience with the Union officials'
prosecution of his grievance which led him to file
the charge against the Union with the Board. That
charge, challenging the adequacy of the Union's
performance on the grievance, prompted the Union
to remove Sabatasse as shop steward. Without his
stewardship, Sabatasse lost the perquisites of the
position: superseniority and exemption from paying
Union dues. It is difficult to perceive any
infringement of employee rights in this minor
contest within the Union. Clearly, Sabatasse was
acting in his capacity as shop steward when he
charged the Union with delay in handling his
grievance. And clearly the Union proceeded against
Sabatasse because of his conduct as steward, not as
employee or Union member. All that is involved is a
disagreement between a shop steward and his
superiors in the Union on the handling of a
grievance. Such disagreements do not raise issues of
Section 7 employee rights merely because the shop
steward files a charge with the Board. Looking
through the charge to the underlying nature of this
dispute, I find no basis for bringing the Union's
removal of Sabatasse as shop steward under the
regulation of this Act ° This being so, the loss of
superseniority flowing from the removal is equally
outside the statutory proscriptions. I would dismiss
the complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590,
AFL-CIO, its officers , agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner ' s Recommended Order, with the
qualification described below.'
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting:
In my opinion , the Trial Examiner ' s Decision
adopted by the majority carries certain legal
principles well beyond their intended reach. I have
no quarrel with the doctrine that employee access to
Board processes is to be free . from union restraint
and coercion ,2 and that a reduction in an employee's
seniority to encourage union membership is unlawful
discrimination .3 However, I fail to see how these
'Substitute "Judgment" for "Decree" wherever it occurs in fn 8 of the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
'N L R B v Industrial Union , 391 U S 418, Local 138 , International
Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO (Charles S Skura) , 148 NLRB
679
'Radio Officers' Union v . N L R B, 341 U S 17, 25-26, 42, 52
'In other words, it is "plainly internal affairs of the union [that] are
involved," and there is here no "overriding public interest" in opening up
Board processes to resolve this purely internal Union matter N L R B v
Industrial Union, 391 U S 418, 424
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT E. MULLiN, Trial Examiner. This case was
heard in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on June 12, 1969,
pursuant to a charge duly filed and served,' and a
complaint issued on May 12, 1969. The complaint
presents questions as to whether the Respondent Union
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. In its
answer, duly filed, the Respondent denied all allegations
that it had committed any unfair labor practices.
All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine
witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to argue
orally. Oral argument was waived. On July 14, 1969, both
the General Counsel and the Respondent Union submitted
able and comprehensive briefs.
'The charge was filed on November 19, 1968
181 NLRB No. 116
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case and from his
observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes
the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
National Tea Company, herein called the Company or
the Employer, is an Illinois corporation engaged in the
retail sale of grocery products in several States of the
United States. During the 12-month period prior to
issuance of the complaint, the Company's gross sales were
in excess of $500,000. During the same period the
Company received goods and products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania,for sale at its Pennsylvania stores. Upon the
foregoing facts, the Respondent concedes, and the Trial
Examiner finds, that the National Tea Company is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America, Amalgamated Food Employees Union
Local 590, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 590 or Union,
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The Respondent Union and the Company have had
collective-bargaining relations for many years The present
proceeding is concerned only with the Company's retail
supermarket located in Washington, Pennsylvania. This
latter store, along with eight others operated by the
Company in western Pennsylvania, is in what is known as
area 3 of the National Tea chain. At all times material
herein, the Union and the Company had a
collective-bargaining agreement covering the unit of which
the Charging Party was a member.
Harry Sabatasse, the Charging Party, was an employee
of the Company for an extended period. At the time of
the hearing he had been working at the Washington store
for approximately 5 years At some time prior to 1968,
the employees in his unit elected him as their steward.
Sabatasse served in that capacity until about November
14, 1968, when he was removed by Business Agent
Richard C. Lutz, acting pursuant to a resolution of the
executive board of Local 590. It is this action by the
Respondent Union which the General Counsel alleges to
have been violative of the Act.
In May 19682 Sabatasse filed a grievance with the
Union wherein he alleged that the management at the
Washington store was violating the collective-bargaining
agreement by use of an independent contractor to scrub
floors once each week. On May 18, Business Agent Lutz
began the processing of this grievance. During June and
July, several meetings with various company officials were
had by both Lutz and John Hormell, the
secretary-treasurer for Local 590. According to Hormell,
despite strenuous efforts to accomplish an adjustment of
this grievance, it was not until mid-September that it was
finally resolved by the Company's promise that in the
future it would not use an outside contractor more than
once a month to perform the floor cleaning and that at all
other times the store personnel would be used for this
work.
Meanwhile, however, Sabatasse had become impatient
with the efforts which the Respondent's officials displayed
in the settlement of the dispute. As a result, on July 30,
Sabatasse filed an unfair labor practice charge against the
Union wherein he alleged that the officers and agents of
Local 590 had unlawfully refused to process the grievance
and, in consequence, had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act (Case 6-CB-1549.) After the Union accomplished
a final disposition of his complaint, Sabatasse sought to
withdraw the charge which he had filed with the Board.
On September 30, the Regional Director approved the
withdrawal of this charge.
On October 14, at a meeting of the Union's staff and,
later , in a session of its executive committee, Sabatasse's
performance was debated at length. During the course of
these deliberations a motion was passed to remove him
from his post of steward. This is noted in the minutes of
the meeting in the following paragraph:
Motion by Brother Serke and seconded by Brother
Hormell that Brother Harry Sabatasse be removed as
union steward due to the fact that he violated his
responsibility as a steward by filing unfair labor
practice against the union and for not' following the
procedure of the contract and constitution. Motion
carried.
On November 14, Business Agent Lutz notified Sabatasse
that he was being removed as a steward for his unit at the
Washington store, effective as of that date. Lutz testified
that he told Sabatasse that he was removing him (1)
because he did not follow the grievance procedure, in that
"he went to the Board before the grievance was finished,"
and (2) because he had engaged in conduct unbecoming a
steward. In explanation of the latter ground for
Sabatasse's removal, Lutz testified that employees in the
store had complained about Sabatasse's conduct and some
were afraid to work near him. According to Lutz, for
many months he, himself, had been dissatisfied with the
overbearing manner which Sabatasse displayed during
discussions with the company supervisors, and the fact
that the latter was never content with the Union's efforts
in processing any of the numerous grievances which he
filed At the hearing, Hormell testified that during the
discussion among the members of the staff and the
executive committee on October 14, he and the other
officials considered complaints of employees in the unit at
the Washington store as to Sabatasse's manner of dealing
with them as well as the charge that on several occasions
when he had helped employees with grievances he
thereafter suggested that they present him with a bottle of
whiskey, and also the fact that, in the disposition of
grievances, Sabatasse frequently disregarded the channels
established by the contract and went directly to any and
all company officials whom he could contact.
As the steward for his unit, Sabatasse had two principal
perquisites, superseniority in the event of a layoff and
freedom from any obligation to pay the monthly dues.
The first of these derived from the collective-bargaining
agreement which provided that "in the event of a layoff
[the steward] shall be the last laid off or reduced in
classification in any case." Art VII, sec. A, art XIX, sec.
G. The second of the foregoing prerogatives was based on
'A11 dates that appear hereinafter are for the year 1968 unless otherwise
specifically noted
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS 775
an article, in the constitution and bylaws of Local 590
which provided that the monthly dues of a steward would
be paid by the Local Union Art 3, sec 18.
The only immediate penalty which Sabatasse incurred
as a result of his ouster was that for the month of
November 1968 and thereafter he was compelled to
resume paying $6 a month in dues, along with the rest of
the rank-and-file membership.' At the hearing, the
Respondent sought to minimize the significance of
superseniority to Sabatasse This was due to the fact that
Sabatasse was, because of many years' service, senior to
all except one other employee in his classification as first
meatcutter for all stores in the Employer's area 3 group
Hormell testified that because of Sabatasse's seniority as
a longtime employee, superseniority accorded to him as a
steward was largely irrelevant and would not have been of
any advantage to him unless the store in Washington was
actually closed and all the employees laid off It was
undenied that subsequent to his removal as steward,
Sabatasse has not been laid off or reduced in classification
and that the Union did not ask the Employer to terminate
or in any way change his status as an employee °
Personnel Director Feid testified that since Sabatasse lost
his position as steward, his employee status and his
seniority, earned as an employee, have not been affected
in any way Business Agent Lutz testified to the same
effect and there was no evidence to the contrary
Sabatasse himself was never called as a witness by either
the General Counsel or the Respondent
B Contentions of the Parties, Findings and
Conclusions with Respect Thereto
The General Counsel contends that Sabatasse's removal
from office was caused by his filing charges with the
Board, that the Union's penalty was coercive within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act, and, further, by
depriving him of his superseniority, the Union likewise
violated Section 8(b)(2) These allegations are denied by
the Respondent in their entirety According to the Union,
the action taken against one of its job stewards is strictly
an internal union matter involving the union-representative
relationship, rather than the union-membership
relationship or the employee-employer relationship, and,
as such, is outside the proscription of Section 8(b)(l)(A)
and (2) of the Act
On the facts set forth above, it is clear that the primary
reason for Sabatasse's removal as a job steward was his
filing an unfair labor practice charge against the Union
Whereas both Hormell and Lutz testified that there were
various other aspects of Sabatasse's conduct which caused
difficulty among the employees and embarrassment to the
'John Feid, personnel director for the Company, testified that, pursuant
to the union -shop provisions of the collective -bargaining agreement, the
Employer resumed deducting monthly dues from Sabatasse 's pay in
November 1968, after notification from Local 590 that a Mrs Dille,
another employee , had replaced Sabatasse as the steward
,in fact, the Union secured Sabatasse's reinstatement after he had been
suspended Lutz testified that when he contacted Sabatasse , on November
14, to apprise him that the union leadership had decided to divest him of
his stewardship , he learned that the preceding Saturday , the Company had
suspended Sabatasse indefinitely for insubordination According to the
credible and undenied testimony of Business Agent Lutz, at the Union's
request, and on that very day, the Company reinstated Sabatasse to his
position as first meatcutter at the Washington store On the basis of these
facts, the Union contends that rather than having taken any action to
affect Sabatasse ' s employment status adversely , the sum total of its course
of action was to secure the employee 's reinstatement
Union, none of these had resulted in the Union's taking
any action prior to the date when the executive committee
voted to remove him "due to the fact that he violated his
responsibility as a steward by filing unfair labor practice
[charges] against the union ." On the record herein,
the Trial Examiner concludes that the motivating cause
for Sabatasse's removal was, as the General Counsel
alleged, that he had filed an unfair labor practice charge
against Local 590.1
It is now well established that a union may not resort
to restraint and coercion in order to restrict the right of
an employee-member to file charges with the Board.
N L R B v. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 391 U.S. 418; Local 138,
international Union of 'Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO
(Charles S Skura), 148 NLRB 679, 681, 682, Cannery
Workers Union (Van Camp Sea Food Co, Inc ). 159
NLRB 843, 844, 852, Local 1367 , International
Longshoremen's Association (Galveston Maritime
Association, Inc ), 148 NLRB 897, 898 In Skura, the
Board stated that the public interest embodied in the Act
required that employees be afforded unimpeded "access to
the Board's processes " (supra, at 682). Later, in
expressing its approbation of this conclusion, the Supreme
Court declared in N L R B v Industrial Union of Marine
and Shipbuilding Workers, supra, at 424-425
The Board cannot initiate its own proceedings,
implementation of the Act is dependent "upon the
initiative of individual persons " Nash v Florida
Industrial Commission, 389 U.S 235, 238. The policy
of keeping people "completely free from coercion,"
ibid , against making complaints to the Board is
therefore important in the functioning of the Act as an
organic whole . Any coercion used to discourage,
retard, or defeat that access is beyond the legitimate
interests of a labor organization That was the
philosophy of the Board in the Skura case . and we
agree that the overriding public interest makes
unimpeded access to the Board the only healthy
alternative, except and unless plainly internal affairs of
'the union are involved
It has been held that dismissal from union office is "a
most effective form of reprisal." Grand Lodge of
International Association of Machinists v King, 355 F 2d
340, 345 (C A 9). Here, Sabatasse not only held union
office as a job steward, he was also an employee in the
unit with a statutorily guaranteed right to "unimpeded
access to the Board." By the sanction visited upon him for
his exercise of that right, the Respondent effectively
demonstrated to all its members, whether job stewards
and/or rank-and-file employees, that all were prohibited
from seeking recourse to the Board unless they first
resorted to the Union's internal procedures for their relief 6
'Even if , as the Respondent contends, other reasons contributed to the
final decision to remove the steward , the presence of such lawful reasons
does not immunize the conduct of which complaint is made N L R B v
Jamestown Sterling Corp . 211 F 2d 725, 726 (C A 2), Philadelphia
Moving Picture Machine Operators ' Union, Local No 307 [A TS E
(Velio lacobucci) . 159 NLRB 1614, 1620
'Whereas the Respondent contends that its action as to Sabatasse
involved only an internal union matter within the meaning of N L R B v
Allis-Chalmers Mfg Co. 388 US 175, and Scofield v N L R B, 394
U S 423, it is the conclusion of the Trial Examiner that Allis-Chalmers,
which involved the fining of union members for crossing a picket line, and
Scofield, which involved the fining of members for exceeding work quotas,
have no application to the issue here in neither of those cases , was the
union there involved attempting to limit or regulate its members' access to
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In Galveston Maritime Association, supra, the Board
found that a district union had engaged in coercion within
the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) by placing a constituent
local into trusteeship and removing its officers in
retaliation for the local's filing of an unfair labor practice
charge against the district The Board further found that
this conduct was not excused by the fact that such action
may have been taken pursuant to the constitution of the
local and the international union involved (Supra, at 916 )
So, too, the conduct of the Respondent here, in removing
its job steward for having filed an unfair labor practice
charge, must be, and is, found to have been a violation of
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.'
C The Alleged Violation of Section 8(b)(2), Findings
and Conclusions With Respect Thereto
The General Counsel alleged that the Respondent
violated Section 8(b)(2) by causing , or attempting to
cause, Sabatasse to lose the superseniority to which he
was entitled as a job steward under the terms of the
collective-bargaining agreement . The Respondent has
answered this contention with the argument that the facts
disclosed that subsequent to his ouster as the steward,
Sabatasse was not laid off or reduced in force and that
neither was his seniority as an employee affected , nor was
any other incident of his employment relationship
A change in an employee ' s seniority affects that
individual ' s employment status and "involuntary reduction
of seniority [ is] clearly discriminatory." Radio
Officers' Union v N L R B, 347 U .S 17, 39 It is true,
as the Respondent contends , that Sabatasse ' s seniority as
an employee was so substantial that his superseniority as a
steward would have been a matter of consequence only if
the Washington store was closed and all its employees laid
off On the other hand , if such an eventuality ever
materialized , his superseniority would have been a very
substantial advantage to him. Consequently, the loss of
such a potential benefit adversely affected Sabatasse's
status as an employee . It is well settled that where a union
inflicts such a reduction of seniority for a discriminatory
reason it violates Section 8 ( b)(2). Radio Officers' Union,
supra; Local No 85 , international Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America (Pacific Motor Trucking Company ), 175 NLRB
No. 112, Miranda Fuel Company, Inc, 140 NLRB 181,
188-189 . Accordingly , the Trial Examiner concludes and
finds that by depriving Sabatasse of his superseniority
because he filed a charge with the Board , the Respondent
caused, or attempted to cause, a change in Sabatasse's
employment status and thereby violated Section 8 (b)(2).
the Board 's processes , as is the situation in the case at bar See Roberts v
NLRB, 350 F 2d 427, 429 (C A D C )
'The Respondent likewise contends that the Charging Party herein
should have sought relief by resort to the provisions of the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U S C
Secs 411, et seq , rather than the National Labor Relations Act There is
no merit to this argument In Skura, the Board held that it had jurisdiction
in cases concerning the protection of employees who file charges,
notwithstanding the availability of an alternate forum for seeking relief
Skura , supra, at 684 When a similar argument was advanced in a suit
under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, the court
declared "Congress was aware that the rights conferred by the [LM RDA]
overlapped those available under state law and other federal legislation,
and expressly provided that these rights were to be cumulative " Grand
Lodge of International Association of Machinists v King , 335 F 2d 340,
347 (C A 9) See also Roberts v N L R B. 350 F 2d 427, 428-429
(CADC)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. National Tea Company is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, Amalgamated Food Employees Union
Local 590, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 By removing Harry Sabatasse from his position as
job steward for his unit because he had filed unfair labor
practice charges with the Board without first exhausting
the internal union procedures, the Respondent has
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
Act.
4 By causing, or attempting to cause, Harry Sabatasse
to lose his superseniority because he had filed unfair labor
practice charges with the Board, or had failed to exhaust
his internal union remedies prior to filing charges with the
Board, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(2) of the Act
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
The rectification of the unfair labor practices here
involved requires the restoration, insofar as possible, of
the status quo ante To accomplish this will require that
Sabatasse be reinstated as the job steward at the
Washington store, much as the Board has, on occasion,
required that a union restore to membership status the
employee who has been discriminatorily expelled from
that membership. Cannery Workers Union (Van Camp
Sea Food Co , Inc ), 159 NLRB 843, 851-852
Since it has been found that upon his removal from the
position of job steward, Sabatasse was thereafter
compelled to resume paying monthly dues to the Union, it
will be recommended that he be reimbursed for the
amount of such dues he had to pay because of the
Respondent's unfair labor practices, with interest thereon
at 6 percent per annum, computed in the manner and
amount provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138
NLRB 716
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner
hereby issues the following
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent , Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Amalgamated Food
Employees Union Local 590, AFL-CIO, its officers,
representatives, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
I Cease and desist from:
(a) Removing any steward -employee from his position,
or causing , or attempting to cause, the loss of
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS
superseniority for any such employee, because he files
unfair labor practice charges with the Board, or fails to
exhaust internal union remedies prior to filing such
charges with the Board
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
employees in Section 7 of the Act
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer Harry Sabatasse reinstatement to the position
of steward at the Washington, Pennsylvania, store of
National Tea Company, if the aforesaid Sabatasse is still
an employee at the store.
(b) Reimburse and make whole Harry Sabatasse for all
dues paid to the Respondent as the result of the unfair
labor practices of the latter in the manner and amount
provided in the section entitled "The Remedy "
(c) Post at its business offices, and at all other places
where notices to members are customarily posted, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix "8 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 6, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by said
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by Respondent for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.'
'in the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order
'In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this
provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 6, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
777
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH
AMERICA, AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCAL 590, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT remove any job steward from his
position because he files unfair labor practice charges
with the National Labor Relations Board against us or
our officials without first exhausting internal union
remedies.
WE WILL NOT cause, or attempt to cause, any
employee to lose his superseniority because he files
unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor
Relations Board, or for failing to exhaust his internal
union remedies prior to filing such charges with the
Board.
WE WILL reinstate Harry Sabatasse as job steward,
upon his request, and make him whole for any
monetary losses sustained by him because of our action
in removing him as steward on November 14, 1968.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act
Dated By
AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS AND BUTCHER
WORKMEN OF NORTH
AMERICA, AMALGAMATED
FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION
LOCAL 590, AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
If members have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1529 Federal
Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15222, Telephone 644-2944.