Food, Drug, Local 595

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1981

257 N.L.R.B. 492 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Food, Drug, Beverage Warehousemen and Clerical
Employees, Local 595, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America (Certified Grocers of
California, Ltd.) and Raymond J. Gottschalk.
Case 21-CB-7251
July 31, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 5, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Richard D. Taplitz issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and Gen-
eral Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
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, find-
ings,' and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Food, Drug,
Beverage Warehousemen and Clerical Employees,
Local 595, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In his Conclusions of Law the Administrative Law Judge concluded
that the Union had violated Sec. 8(a)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act rather than
8(b)(1)(A) and (2). This inadvertent error is hereby corrected.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD D. TAPLITZ, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard before me in Los Angeles, Califor-
nia, on November 3, 1980. The charge and amended
charge were filed, respectively, on March 17 and April
25, 1980, by Raymond J. Gottschalk, an individual. The
complaint issued on May 6, 1980, alleging that Food,
Drug, Beverage Warehousemen and Clerical Employees,
Local 595, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called the Union, violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Issues
The primary issue is whether the Union violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by giving inadequate
notice of dues and reinitiation fee delinquencies to Gotts-
chalk before enforcing a union-security clause, and caus-
ing his discharge.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs,
which have been carefully considered, were filed on
behalf of the General Counsel and the Union.
Upon the entire record of the case, and from my ob-
servation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., herein called the
Company, a California corporation, is engaged in the sale
and distribution of grocery products at various facilities,
including a facility at 2601 South Eastern Avenue, Los
Angeles, California. The Company annually purchases
and receives goods and products valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State
of California. The complaint alleges, the answer admits,
and I find, that the Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE AI.LEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Sequence of Events
1. Background
The Company is a member of Food Employer's Coun-
cil, Inc., herein called the Council, and as such is bound
by an outstanding collective-bargaining contract that the
Council has with various locals of the Teamsters includ-
ing the Union herein. That contract contains a union-se-
curity clause which, inter alia, requires as a condition of
continued employment that employees who are union
members remain members in good standing in the Union.
The contract defines good standing as "timely payment
of regular dues and initiation fees, including reinitiation
fees, uniformly applied to all members." The contract
also provides that an employer shall discharge an em-
ployee at the expiration of 7 calendar days following re-
ceipt of a written notice from the Union that the em-
ployee has failed to maintain membership in good stand-
ing, "unless the employee has corrected the deficiency
and the Employer is so notified within the seven (7)
days."
The Union has an established procedure with regard
to dues payment while an employee is on disability leave.
A union member may request a withdrawal card when
he is on disability leave. When an employee has such a
257 NLRB No. 80
492
FOOD, DRUG, LOCAL 595
card he does not have to pay union dues for any month
in which he does not work 3 days or more. Walter
Pettit, a business agent for the Union, testified that when
employees go on disability leave they are instructed
about the withdrawal card procedure. He acknowledged,
however, that he never instructed Gottschalk about that
procedure. Gottschalk credibly testified that no one from
the Union ever told him about the need for a withdrawal
card.
2. The events leading to the discharge of
Gottschalk
Raymond J. Gottschalk was hired by the Company as
a warehouse orderman on September 21, 1978. He joined
the Union 30 days after his hire. Pursuant to union rules
he paid his dues on a quarterly basis, and he had no
problem with his membership until mid-October 1979
when he left work on disability leave due to a back
injury.
About the end of October 1979, he called union head-
quarters to find out what the procedure was with regard
to dues payments during disability leave. He asked to
speak to Union Business Agent Walt Pettit, but the sec-
retary who answered the phone told him that Pettit was
not in. Gottschalk asked her what the procedure was for
paying dues while an employee was out of work because
of an on-the-job injury. She told him that if he worked
less than 3 days a month he did not have to pay union
dues for that month.' Based on the information he re-
ceived, Gottschalk did not pay union dues during the
period of his disability leave.
On February 15, 1980, while Gottschalk was still on
disability leave, the Union sent him a letter entitled
"Notice of Suspension." The letter stated that union re-
cords indicated that he was a suspended member for
nonpayment of dues for 3 months; that he owed a reini-
tiation fee of $15, a compulsory fine of $16, a late fine of
$3, and $53.50 in dues amounting to a total of $87.50;
that the total amount should be received by the Union
no later than February 29, 1980; and that failure to ob-
serve the notice with respect to dues and reinitiation fee
might cause his removal from the job. Gottschalk never
received the letter. Prior to the time the letter was sent,
Gottschalk had moved to a new address and he had not
left a forwarding address for his mail. He gave the Com-
pany his new address, but he did not give it to the Union
or the shop steward.
Gottschalk returned to work on February 26, 1980. As
of that time, he had received no communication from the
Union regarding his dues obligation other than the infor-
mation he received when he spoke to the secretary at the
union office. That information was that he did not have
to pay dues for any month in which he worked less than
3 days.
Pettit credibly testified that secretaries were not authorized to give
out information with regard to union policy He acknowledged, however,
that union policy did not require an employee who held a withdrawal
card to pay union dues in a month in which he worked less than 3 days.
Thus. the information that the secretary gave Gottschalk was accurate.
However, the secretary made no mention of the need for a withdrawal
card.
About a week after Gottschalk returned to work, he
approached Union Shop Steward Louie DeCosta2 and
asked him when he had to pay his union dues. Gotts-
chalk told DeCosta that he had been off from work for 4
months. DeCosta said that he knew Gottschalk had been
off from work and that Gottschalk had until the end of
the month to pay his dues. 3
By letter dated March 4, 1980, the Union notified the
Company that Gottschalk had failed to pay dues and
reinitiation fees as required. The letter, which was re-
ceived by the Company on March 7, requested that
Gottschalk be removed from the payroll at the end of 7
days, following receipt of the letter. The letter also
stated that if Gottschalk corrected the deficiency within
the 7 days, the Company would be notified. There is no
indication in the letter that a copy was sent to Gotts-
chalk. Neither the Union nor the Company notified
Gottschalk that the letter had been sent, or that he had 7
days to make the payments. The first time that Gotts-
chalk knew he had a problem was on March 14, 1980,
when Western Union phoned to read him a mailgram.
He received a copy of that mailgram the following day,
on March 15. In the mailgram, the Company informed
him that he was being involuntarily terminated effective
March 14 at the request of the Union because of his fail-
ure to comply with the union-security clause of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement.
3. The postdischarge events
On March 15, immediately after Western Union had
read him the mailgram, which stated that he had been
discharged, Gottschalk called Union Business Agent
Pettit. He told Pettit that he had received a notice saying
he was fired and he asked why he had not been told that
he had to pay his dues right then. Gottschalk said that he
had until the end of the month to pay his dues. Pettit re-
plied that there was not anything that he could do about
it and that Gottschalk could ask the Company's plant
manager if he could be reinstated. Gottschalk filed the
charge in this case on March 17, 1980.
: The complaint alleges, the amended answer admits, and I find that
DeCosta was an agent of the Union.
3 These findings are based on the testimony of Gottschalk. DeCosta's
version of the conversation was very different. DeCosta testified that he
spoke to Gottschalk the first day after Gottschalk returned; that he told
Gottschalk that the dues had to be paid immediately, that he showed
Gottschalk a union printout of members in arrears, which set forth the
amount Gottschalk owed; and that he told Gottschalk that unless he paid
immediately his union card would be pulled, and that he needed a union
card to work there. Gottschalk in his testimony denied that DeCosta told
him those things. DeCosta was not a convincing witness. On direct exam-
ination, he testified that he told Gottschalk that if he did not pay the
amount due his union card would be pulled. In that part of his testimony,
DeCosta made no claim that he told Gottschalk that Gottschalk was sub-
ject to discharge if he did not pay the amount due. However, on cross-
examination DeCosta expanded on his testimony. He was asked, "You
testified that you told him his Union card would be pulled; is that cor-
rect?" and he answered, "No. I told him, 'you need a union card to work
here."' Still, later in his testimony, he combined the two concepts and
testified that he told Gottschalk. "You ought to get down there now and
take care of this because you need a Union card to work here. They ill
pull your union card " Gottschalk appeared to he a full credible witness
and as between Gottlschalk and DeCosta I credit Goltschalk
493
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 21, 1980, Union Business Agent Pettit sent a
letter to the Company. It was received on March 25 and
it read:
While the above named member [Gottschalk] ne-
glected to give the Union a change of address and
the notices of delinquency were mailed to his old
address, we are requesting that he be reinstated on
the job and given two days to pay $87.50 due the
Union. This is done without admission of liability
on the Union's part and merely as an equitable act.
On March 25, the Company's director of personnel,
Charles Bemis, spoke to Pettit on the telephone about
the letter. Pettit told Bemis that the request was made
because Gottschalk had moved and the Union did not
have his current address. Bemis told Pettit that he
(Bemis) had been informed by his personnel office that
shop steward DeCosta had spoken to Gottschalk shortly
after Gottschalk returned to work and that DeCosta had
told Gottschalk to get down and pay his dues. Pettit re-
plied that DeCosta had told Gottschalk about the dues
but that he did not tell him about the 7 day notice.
Gottschalk was reinstated to his former position with
the Company on March 26, 1980. Shortly thereafter,
Gottschalk paid the Union $87.50. That amount included
the $15 reinitiation fee, the $16 compulsory fine, the $3
late fines, and the $53.50 dues. Pettit testified in sub-
stance that it is the Union's policy not to require the pay-
ment of compulsory fines and late fines with regard to
enforcement of the union-security clause. However, Pet-
tit's March 21, 1980, letter to the Company requested
that Gottschalk be reinstated and given 2 days to pay
$87.50 due the Union. That $87.50 included $16 compul-
sory fine and $3 late fines.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
A union has a right to enforce a lawful union-security
clause. However, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of employees, it has the duty to represent
employees fairly. When a union chooses to exercise its
rights under a union-security clause and cause the dis-
charge of an employee, whom it has the duty to repre-
sent, it is in a position where there is serious potential for
conflict of interests. In such circumstances it is particu-
larly important that the "fairness" standard be applied.
As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in N.L.R.B.
v. Construction and Building Material Teamsters Local
No. 291, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
[Kaiser Industries, Sand and Gravel, 633 F.2d 1295, 1299
(9th Cir. 1980), enfg. in pertinent part 236 NLRB 1100
(1978):
The union is perfectly free to discourage delinquent
dues payments by imposing sanctions on its mem-
bers unless those sanctions interfere with a mem-
ber's employment and his relations with his employ-
er. In that event, the union's fiduciary duty to rep-
resent and deal fairly with its members comes into
play. The provisions of the Act at issue here,
§8(b)(2) and ()(A), must be read with this duty in
mind.
As the Board held in Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers & Helpers
Union, Local 572, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffuers, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Ralphs
Grocery Company), 247 NLRB 934, 935 (1980): 4
We find merit in the General Counsel's conten-
tion that "reasonably couched effort" to notify Roy
of her membership obligations is not sufficient
under Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) to satisfy the
Union's fiduciary duty to her. In N.L.R.B. v. Hotel,
Motel & Club Employees' Union, Local 568, AFL-
CIO [Philadelphia Sheraton Corp.],6 the Third Cir-
cuit held that the "minimum" requirement of this
duty is to "inform the employee of his obligations in
order that the employee may take whatever action
is necessary to protect his job tenure." In Teamsters
Local Union No. 122 (August A. Busch & Co. of
Mass., Inc.),' the Board specifically defined the
union's duty as including "a statement of the precise
amount and months for which dues were owed, as
well as an explanation of the methods used in com-
puting the amount" plus "an adequate opportunity
to make payment." In Chauffeurs, Teamsters and
Helpers Local Union 150, et al. (Delta Lines),8 we
stressed that inquiries made by an individual as to
his or her obligations do not relieve a union of its
affirmative duty under the Act specifically to inform
an individual of his obligations and afford him a
reasonable opportunity to satisfy them before seek-
ing his discharge under a union-security clause.
6320 F.2d 254, 258 (1963), enfg. 136 NLRB 888 (1962).
7 203 NLRB 1041, 1042 (1973), enfd. 502 F.2d 1160 (Ist Cir.
1974).
8 242 NL.RB 454 (1979).
Actual as opposed to constructive notice of a dues de-
linquency is required. International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers,
Local Lodge No. 732, AFL-CIO (Triple A Machine Shop,
Inc., d/b/a Triple A South), 239 NLRB 504 (1978). A
union does not meet its duty to notify an employee of a
dues delinquency merely by sending the employee a
letter, if the letter is not received. As the Board held in
District 9, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (Marvel-Schebzer, Division
of Borg-Warner Corp.), 237 NLRB 1278 (1978):
The Administrative Law Judge's finding that the
Respondent fulfilled its fiduciary duty toward York
simply by mailing him a notice informing him of his
obligation with respect to dues while out sick, with-
out regard to whether York received the notice, is
mistaken. We have consistently held that, absent ex-
tenuating circumstances, a union which seeks to en-
force a union-security clause with respect to partic-
ular employees has the absolute duty to see that
4See also Valley Cabinet & Mfg.. Inc.. 253 NLRB 98 (1980); United
Metaltronics and Hospital Supply Employee.c Local 955 (Pharmaseal Labo-
ratories, Inc.), 254 NLRB 601 (1981).
494
FOOD, DRUG, LOCAL 595
they are in fact informed of their financial member-
ship obligations prior to demanding the employees'
discharge for nonpayment of regular dues and fees.
Thus, it is not sufficient for a union simply to at-
tempt to notify employees of the obligation with
which they must comply in order to protect their
employment status.
In the instant case there are no such extenuating circum-
stances. There is no showing that Gottschalk displayed
bad faith or was willfully and deliberately evading his fi-
nancial obligations. Chauffeurs. Teamsters and Helpers
Local Union 150, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America (Delta Lines), 242 NLRB 454 (1979).
An employee may only be discharged for nonpayment
of dues under a union-security clause where the evidence
establishes that the employee made a conscious choice to
withhold his dues. Ignorance or inadvertence on the part
of the employee is not sufficient. As the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals held in .L.R.B. v. Construction and
Building Material Teamsters Local No. 291, IBT, supra.
In Conductron Corp., 183 NLRB 419, 426 (1970),
the Board stated:
[T]he extremity of the penalty against the em-
ployee for nonpayment of dues requires that it
should not be sanctioned unless as a practical
matter the union has taken the necessary steps to
make certain that a reasonable employee will not
fail to meet his membership obligation through
ignorance or inadvertence but will do so only as
a matter of conscious choice.
In our view this is a salutary rule.
Though the Union sent Gottschalk a letter relating to
dues delinquency, that letter was not received. The
Union's attempt to inform Gottschalk of his obligation
was not adequate notice. In fact, Gottschalk was not in-
formed of his financial obligation. Shop steward DeCosta
spoke with Gottschalk about dues requirements after
Gottschalk returned to work. Gottschalk was entitled to
a statement of the precise amount and months for which
dues were owed, an explanation of the methods used in
computing the amount, and an adequate opportunity to
make payment. DeCosta's comments fell far short of pro-
viding the necessary notice. The evidence clearly estab-
lishes that Gottschalk failed to meet his membership obli-
gation through ignorance or inadvertance and not as a
matter of conscious choice. Under such circumstances,
the Union could not lawfully request or require his dis-
charge pursuant to the union-security clause. I find that
the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act
as alleged in the complaint.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Union, as set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the business oper-
ations of the Company as set forth in section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States
and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
(2) of the Act, I recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I also recommend that the Union be ordered to make
Gottschalk whole for any loss of wages and other bene-
fits resulting from the discrimination against him, by pay-
ment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he
would normally have earned as wages and other benefits
from March 14, which was the date of his discharge, to
March 26, 1980, which was the date of his reinstatement,
less net earnings during that period. The amount of back-
pay shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest
thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in Flor-
ida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 5
In his brief, counsel for the General Counsel requests
that I recommend that the Union be ordered to refund to
Gottschalk the reinitiation fee and compulsory and late
fines paid by him to the Union. In Construction and
Building Material Teamsters Local No. 291, IBT, 236
NLRB 1100, enfd. in part 633 F.2d 1295, 1299, the Board
modified the Administrative Law Judge's decision by
adding a requirement that a union refund the reinitiation
fees paid by an employee.6 The Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals refused to enforce that part of the Board's
order, holding:
The Board added to the order recommended by
the Administrative Law Judge the requirement that
the union pay back to White the reinitiation fee paid
by him. This portion of the order we decline to en-
force. It is by means of this type of sanction that
the union can discourage delinquency. We find
nothing in the findings of the Administrative Law
Judge to suggest that failure to waive reinitiation
fee in this case did not comport with past practice.
That should, in our view, be the proper standard.
The current Board law is set forth in Chauffeurs, Sales-
drivers & Helpers Union, Local 572, IBT (Ralphs Grocery
Company), supra at 936, fn. 10, where the Board held:
Although we find a violation of Sec. 8(b)(1)(a)
and (2), we shall not, as counsel for the General
Counsel requests, order Respondent to refund Roy's
reinitiation fee. Counsel for the General Counsel
argues that a refund must be ordered to preserve
the status quo ante, citing International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders. Blacksmiths, Forg-
ers & Helpers, Local Lodge No. 732, AFL-CIO
(Triple A Machine Shop, d/b/a Triple A South), 239
NLRB 504 (1978), and Teamsters Local Union No.
5 See, generally, hIis Plumbing Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
' See also Dirictr 9. L4M (Borg- Warner Corp.), upra at 1279, fn 3
495
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
122 (August A. Busch & Co. of Mass., Inc.), supra.
[203 NLRB 1041, 1042 (1973), enfd. 502 F.2d 1160
(Ist Cir. 1974).] In each of these cases the finding of
a violation due to lack of notice was coupled with
evidence of inconsistent enforcement of the delin-
quency rules, rendering the assessment of the reini-
tiation fee invalid. In Triple A South, the Adminis-
trative Law Judge found that the insufficient notice
was part of an "invidious scheme to collect rein-
statement fees." In August A. Busch, there was an
additional finding that the fees had not been im-
posed uniformly. Here, there is no evidence of in-
consistent enforcement and no allegation that Roy
did not actually owe the fee under Respondent's
bylaws. We shall, therefore, award her only the loss
of earnings she incurred as a result of the Respond-
ent's request that she be discharged.
That analysis applies equally to the instant case, and I
therefore shall not recommend that the Union be ordered
to refund the reinitiation fee and compulsory and late
fines paid by Gottschalk.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause and causing the Company to
discharge Gottschalk for failure to tender periodic dues
and reinitiation fee without adequately advising him of
his obligations, the Union has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l)(A) and
(2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER7
The Respondent, Food, Drug, Beverage Warehouse-
men and Clerical Employees, Local 595, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Los Angeles, California, its offi-
cers, agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Certified Grocers
of California, Ltd., to discharge or to otherwise discrimi-
nate against Raymond J. Gottschalk, or any other em-
ployee, for failure to tender periodic dues or reinitiation
fees without adequately advising them of their obliga-
tions.
' 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 find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order 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 fior all purposes.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Raymond J. Gottschalk for any loss of
pay and other benefits he may have suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth
in the section of this Decison entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its business offices, hiring halls, and meeting
places, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 8 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed
by its authorized representative, shall be posted by it im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to members are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Forward a sufficient number of signed copies of
said notice to the Regional Director for Region 21, for
posting by Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., at its
place of business in Los Angeles, California, in places
where notices to employees are customarily posted, if
said employer is willing to do so.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
s In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Governmemnt
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Certified
Grocers of California, Ltd., to discharge or to oth-
erwise discriminate against Raymond J. Gottschalk,
or any other employee, for failure to tender period-
ic dues or reinitiation fees without adequately adi-
vising them of their obligations.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re-
strain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make Raymond J. Gottschalk whole
for any loss of pay and other benefits he may have
suffered as a result of our discrimination against him
by paying him backpay with interest.
FOOD, DRUG, BEVERAGE WAREHOUSEMEN
AND CLERICAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 595,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
496