Safeway Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 930 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Safeway Stores , Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 408. Case
23-CA-3490
November 30, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On June 24, 1970, Trial Examiner Henry L. Jalette
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found
that the Respondent did not engage in certain of other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended dismissal of those allegations of the
complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examin-
er's Decision and supporting briefs, and the Respon-
dent filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions 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 of the Trial
Examiner made 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, briefs, and the
entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
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, Safeway Stores, Inc.,
Bryan, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HENRY L JALETTE, Trial Examiner : This case was tried
in Bryan, Texas, on March 17 and 18 , 1970. The complaint
At the close of hearing Respondent filed a motion to receive into
evidence as Resp Exh 9(o) a company record of "Gross Profit.
issued on February 17, 1970, pursuant to a charge filed by
the Union on December 4, 1969, and an amended charge
filed on January 19, 1970. The complaint alleges that the
Respondent engaged in certain independent 8(a)(1) and (3)
conduct as will be described hereinafter and discriminated
against employees Cary Blackburn and Billy Campbell in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Upon the entire record,I including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Safeway Stores, Inc., is a Maryland corporation engaged
in the business of operating a chain of retail supermarkets,
including retail stores in Bryan, Texas. In the course and
conduct of its business operations, Respondent annually
sells goods valued in excess of $500,000 and annually
purchases goods valued in excess of $50,000, which goods
are shipped directly to its stores in Texas from points
outside the State of Texas.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 408, is, and at
all times material herein has been , a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary Statement
This entire case centers on the activities of two of
Respondent's employees, statements allegedly made to
them, and alleged discrimination against them. The two
employees are Cary Blackburn and Billy Campbell, both of
whom were employed as meatcutters in Respondent's store
256 in Bryan, Texas. Blackburn had been employed since
May 1968, and Campbell since February 1969. Both were
students at Texas A & M University, but nevertheless
worked for Respondent 40 hours per week.
In the last part of July or early August, Blackburn and
Campbell contacted the Union by telephone, thereafter met
with a union representative, signed authorization cards, and
solicited other employees to support the Union.
On October 1, 1969, the Union filed a petition for an
election in a unit of all meat department employees in
Respondent's two Bryan, Texas, stores, 256 and 294. On
October 20, the parties entered into a stipulation for
certification upon consent election, scheduling an election
for October 30. Blackburn was union observer at store 256
and Campbell at store 294. Of 11 eligible voters, 6 cast
ballots for union representation and 1 against. On
November 7 the Union was certified.
Thereafter, split shifts, which permitted Blackburn and
Markdowns and Inventory losses" for the meat department at certain of its
stores By order dated March 25, 1970, 1 granted the motion Such order is
hereby received into evidence as T X Exh I Respondent also filed a
motion to reopen hearing with attached sworn statements. I denied the
motion The motion and my order are hereby received into evidence as
T X Exh 2 and 3, respectively
186 NLRB No. 131
SAFEWAY STORES 931
Campbell to work and attend college, were abolished and
the work schedule of Blackburn was changed so that
Blackburn had to choose between school and work. Still
later, Campbell was given two written warnings and his
hours of work were reduced. The complaint alleges that this
conduct was motivated by Blackburn's and Campbell's
union activities.
As is true in nearly all cases, the judgment of the Trial
Examiner in this case depends on whose testimony he
believes. General Counsel's case rests almost entirely on the
testimony of Blackburn and Campbell, Respondent's case,
on the testimony of supervisors or officials of the Company.
There is an almost total conflict in the testimony of the two
sets of witnesses . Resolving the conflict has been no easy
matter. Blackburn and Campbell are clean-cut boys
industrious enough and ambitious enough to be working
their way through college in time-honored fashion. They
appeared honest and truthful. Yet, there are such serious
flaws in their testimony that I have been unable to give
credence to it where contradicted by Respondent's
witnesses. This is not to say that the testimony of
Respondent's witnesses was not also suspect in some
instances either because of its implausibility, or because it
lacked details and was frequently elicited by leading
questions In the final analysis, however, the deficiencies in
their testimony were outweighed by the deficiencies in the
testimony of Blackburn and Campbell. Of course, these are
generalizations, but they will be developed in greater detail,
where possible, in discussing specific issues
B. The Cancellation of Campbell's Raise
The complaint alleges that on October 3, Respondent
canceled a pay raise which had previously been approved
and ordered into effect for Billy Campbell, and that District
Manager Dean Gantt told Campbell the raise had been
canceled because a petition had been filed.
There is no dispute about the facts. Dean Gantt admitted
he had approved a raise for Campbell and that when he
learned that the Union had filed a petition he called the
Company's office to cancel it. Gantt could not recall telling
Campbell about the cancellation, but the answer admits he
did and Campbell testified Gantt told him he had not
received the raise because the Union had filed a petition,
and that the check had been made out with the raise
included and he had to call Dallas to cancel the raise and
draw a new check.
Gantt testified that it is Respondent's policy to freeze all
raises any time the Company is in negotiations or a petition
is filed for an election. Counsel for Respondent stated that
it is Respondent's policy to hold everything in abeyance at
any time a petition is filed. Thus, if raises have been in the
mill they are canceled If any other benefits have been
passed on and agreed to, then they are withheld also
because of Respondent's fear that by putting them into
effect after a petition has been filed they may be accused of
attempting to buy off the employees.
I seriously question that the policy is quite as described
by Gantt or counsel for Respondent. For example, the
record in this case indicates that after the Union was
certified Respondent eliminated split shifts and changed
the hours of work of Campbell and Blackburn. Such
conduct, if done without notice to or consultation with the
Union, is violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Rounsaville
of Nashville, Inc., 182 NLRB No. 88. Respondent does not
appear to have been troubled by the prospect of an unfair
labor practice charge with regard to those changes.
Moreover, according to the opening statement of counsel
for Respondent, in Oklahoma City, after a petition was
filed, the Company put into effect a pay raise that had been
ordered by the division manager before the filing of the
petition. This is contrary to the very policy assertedly
followed here. Counsel stated an unfair labor practice
charge was filed with regard to that action , but he did not
state whether a complaint had issued. In light of the
foregoing, the dimensions of the alleged policy are
somewhat obscure. I need make no finding about the policy
itself, however, but only about its application in this case.
Undoubtedly there will be situations where an employer
who grants raises in a preelection period in conformity with
past practice will face groundless charges of the commis-
sion of unfair labor practices. As the Supreme Court has
observed, however: "Lawsuits also often prove to have
been groundless; but no way has been discovered of
relieving a defendant from the necessity of a trial to
establish the fact."2 But in the final analysis, the employer
has no real dilemma: All that the law asks is that he
conduct his business as he would if a union were not in the
picture. "As the Board has held, an employer confronted
with a union organizing campaign should decide the
question of granting or withholding benefits as he would if
a union were not in the picture; if his course of action in
granting or withholding benefits is prompted by the
Union's presence, he violates the Act." The May Depart-
ment Store Company, 174 NLRB No. 109; Gates Rubber
Company, 182 NLRB No. 15. Respondent admittedly did
dust the opposite when it canceled a raise that had been
approved because a petition for election had been filed. The
natural and forseeable consequence of the cancellation of
the raise and the statement to Campbell that it was because
a petition had been filed (Campbell was not told that the
raise was canceled to avoid an unfair labor practice charge)
is the coercion of employees in the exercise of their Section
7 rights. Accordingly, I find that by canceling Campbell's
raise Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
and that the statement to him of the reason for the
cancellation was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.3
2 Myers, et al v Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp, 303 U S 41, 51-52
3 Of the cases cited by Respondent, Stuttgart Shoe Corporation, 149
NLRB 663, is factually distinguishable because the employee had not been
actually promised a wage increase, Standard Coil Products, inc, 99 NLRB
899, is factually distinguishable because the raise was merely under
consideration, in N L. R B v Dorn's Transportation Company, 405 F 2d 706
(C A 2), the raises in issue had not, like Campbell's, been approved, they
were being sought, while Winston Heat Treating, Inc v. N L R B, 422 F 2d
844 (C A 6), supports Respondent's position, I am bound by the Board's
decision therein which accords with the conclusion I reach in this case
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The Threats by Richard Colby
Richard Colby was manager of the meat department at
store 256 until either mid-August or early September.4 The
complaint alleges that on or about August 22, Colby
threatened an employee that if he joined or supported the
Union he would have his hours changed and the result
would be a termination of his employment, and that he
made a similar threat on or about August 28.
Employee Campbell testified that in the latter part of
August or very first of September, Colby told him he had
heard a rumor that he and Blackburn were trying to
organize a union and that he thought it could only take the
two of them or 50 percent to vote the Union in. (Campbell
and Blackburn were the only meatcutters, and the only
other employee was a meatwrapper.) Colby said if they
voted the Union in, they would have their schedules
changed so that they could not work and go to school.
Colby told Campbell that if he saw Blackburn he was to tell
him Colby wanted to see him.
According to Blackburn, when he came to work one
evening in the latter part of August, he was told by
Campbell that Colby wanted to talk to him. Blackburn
went to Colby who said he wanted to talk to him about the
Union. He said, "I have been told to tell you that if you join
the union I am going to have to change your hours where
you can't work." Blackburn asked Colby what he meant
and Colby remarked that Blackburn and Campbell could
vote the Union in, but that he would have to change
Blackburn's hours if hejoined the Union because "we don't
want the union in here."
Colby denied both conversations. There is little to go by
in the record to help resolve the credibility issue presented
by the foregoing beyond my impression of the witnesses. In
balance, despite the fact that Colby was a somewhat
taciturn witness whose testimony lacked details, I credit his
testimony. As stated earlier, flaws in the testimony of
Blackburn and Campbell have persuaded me they cannot
be credited where their testimony is contradicted. Accord-
ingly, I shall recommend that the allegations of the
complaint relative to Colby be dismissed.
D. The Threats by Luckie
The complaint alleges that on a date in the early part of
November, Store Manager Tommy Luckfe (1) interrogated
employees, (2) told employees the Union could not afford
them any job security and their employment could be
terminated under the guise of insufficient work or by
changing their hours of work, and (3) threatened employees
that he was going to institute changes in store practices such
as removing a telephone extension from access to
employees and requiring employees to don aprons before
starting work, because they favored the Union.
According to Blackburn, Luckie became store manager 5
or 6 days after the election (held on October 30), and a
week later while he and Campbell were waiting to unload a
4 According to employee Blackburn, Colby was manager of the meat
department at store 256 until September 7. Colby denied he was employed
at store 256 in the latter part of August He testified he was transferred to
Respondent's other Bryan, Texas, store in mid-August However, his
testimony is at odds with Respondent's answer which states he was at store
truck Luckie came up and spoke to them. He asked them to
work with him as a team, a family. He said there had been a
lot of stealing going on and he wanted Blackburn and
Campbell to help watch to see nothing was sneaked out the
back door. He remarked, "I hear the union has come in"
and Blackburn answered, "Yes, sir, it has. We have already
had an election since before you came here." Luckie asked
what good the Union could do, that he had been in a union
and he did not see where it helped a man. Blackburn told
him he wanted a pay raise, insurance benefits, and job
security. Campbell said he had a substantial raise coming
and he wanted security. Blackburn told Luckie that Howell
had told him that the Company could dismiss them "simply
by saying the next day you're gone" and the employees had
no protection. Luckie replied that if he really wanted to get
nd of them all he would have to say was that there was
insufficient work or he could change their hours of work.
Luckie said that as a new store manager he was going to
have to make some changes in the store, that he was
cracking down on the grocery department and was going to
have to do the same with the meat department. He adverted
to the fact that the Retail Clerks Union had recently won an
election in the grocery department and he did not like it. He
told Blackburn and Campbell that they would be required
to put on their aprons and hats before they clocked in and
to remove them after they clocked out. Employees were
doingjust the opposite.
Luckie also said he was going to remove an extension
telephone in the grocery section used by employees to
receive or make calls.
On direct examination, the foregoing changes were the
only changes which Blackburn testified were mentioned by
Luckie. On redirect examination, in answer to a leading
question by counsel for General Counsel, Blackburn added
that Luckie had also said that he was eliminating the split
shifts.
Billy Campbell testified about the same conversation,
essentially along the same lines as Blackburn, except that he
included the announcement of the elimination of split shifts
in his direct testimony.
Luckie denied that the conversation described by
Blackburn and Campbell ever took place and denied
making any of the statements attributed to him by them on
any other occasion. I credit Luckie.
There are several reasons for not crediting Blackburn and
Campbell. To begin with, they were obviously mistaken in
stating that Luckie became store manager after the election.
Luckie testified he became store manager on October 19
and his testimony is corroborated by a personnel record,
the accuracy of which I have no reason to doubt. Another
witness of General Counsel, Jack Palasota, corroborated
Respondent when he testified he had a conversation with
Store Manager Luckie when "we was fixing to vote, to go
union."
The date Luckie became store manager has no independ-
ent significance, but if Luckie was store manager as of
October 19, he was well aware of the election and it is
256 until September 21 A similar conflict about dates is presented
regarding the date Tommy Luckie became manager of store 256, except
that in his case Respondent corroborated Luckie's testimony by a
personnel record The date of Colby's transfer from store 256 is
unimportant and 1 do not resolve the issue
SAFEWAY STORES 933
inconceivable that the colloquy described by Blackburn
(i.e., "I hear the union has come in" with Blackburn's reply
"We have already had an election since before you came
here") could have been exchanged. In addition, the
elimination of split shifts was such an important matter for
Blackburn that I can't understand his failure to mention
that fact on direct. Moreover, Blackburn testified that a few
days after the alleged conversation with Luckie, Meat
Market Manager Howell came to him and told him there
were some more changes, and when Blackburn asked what
they were Howell told him about the elimination of split
shifts. Blackburn did not tell Howell he already knew about
it; rather, he asked Howell why when allegedly Luckie had
already told him why.
In Campbell's version, Luckie was the one to state that
the Union had won the election and that he had come from
a store that had had an election.5 But Campbell's version is
flawed by his attributing to Luckie the statement, "if the
union came in," a phrase he attributed to Luckie in another
conversation with Luckie about his raise. Luckie's alleged
use of such a phrase makes no sense in conversations
allegedly occurring after the election won by the Union. On
cross-examination, Campbell offered the explanation that,
"What I referred to by that, sir, we had voted the union in,
but until we joined the union we are not in the union, sir,
until we ratify on contract. This is what I was referring to."
Of course, the question is not what Campbell was referring
to, but what Luckie allegedly said.
In light of such discrepancies, plus the absence of any
explanation why Luckie would have uttered these remarks
when the Union had already been certified, I cannot credit
Blackburn and Campbell and I shall recommend dismissal
of the allegations respecting independent 8(a)(1) violations
by Luckie.6
E. The Changes in Blackburn's Work Schedule
Since the start of his employment, Blackburn had been
working split shifts which permitted him to attend college.
His hours of work were generally worked out with the meat
market manager and for three semesters he had been given
a letter for the college setting forth his work schedule so
that his class schedule could be arranged to avoid a conflict.
Prior to November 8, Blackburn's work schedule was as
follows:
Monday Tuesday
7 a.m.- Off
12 p.m.
Wednesday Thursday
8 a.m.- 11 a.m.-
5 p.m. 8 p.m.
Friday Saturday
7 a.m.- 11 a.m.-
12 p.m. 8 p.m.
4:30-8 p.m.
It is undisputed that on or about November 8 split shifts
5 Blackburn was inaccurate on this point also, testifying on direct that
Luckie said he had been in the Union himself He corrected himself on
cross-examination to state Luckie said he came from a union store
R Respondent did remove the extension phone and employees were
were eliminated and Blackburn was assigned the following
work schedule:
Monday Tuesday
6 a.m.-2 p.m. Off
Wednesday Thursday
8 a.m.-5 p.m. 1-8 P.M.
Friday Saturday
9 a.m -6 p.m. 11 a.m.-8 p.m.
Under this schedule, Blackburn could not work on
Friday because he had a class from I to 4 p.m.; however, he
testified that he decided to forget about the class in the
hope there would soon be a union contract, and he and
Howell worked out a schedule which would permit him to
work the greatest number of hours.
On November 29 a new work schedule was posted and
after Blackburn had studied it he told Howell that he could
not work the schedule because it conflicted with his class
schedule.
According to Blackburn, the new schedule was as
follows:
Monday
7:45 a.m.-4:45 p.m.
Wednesday
Off
Friday
9 a.m.-6 p.m.
Tuesday
7:45 a.m.-4:45 p.m.
Thursday
7:45 a.m.-4:45 p.m.
Saturday
11 a.m.-8 p.m.
On Mondays, Blackburn had a class from 4 to 5 p.m.; on
Tuesdays, from 8 a.m. to 12 noon; on Wednesdays, no
classes; on Thursdays from 8 a.m. to 12 noon, and on
Fridays, from 1 to 4 p.m.
Under this schedule, the only day he could work was
Saturday. He told Howell this. Blackburn noted that by
making a minor change in Campbell's schedule he could
work Campbell's schedule. Campbell had dropped out of
school temporarily and was agreeable to a switch. He asked
Howell if they could do so and Howell checked with Luckie
who refused to permit the switch because Campbell would
be starting school in 2 weeks. (Actually, Campbell was not
scheduled to resume school for nearly 2 months.)
According to Blackburn, he did not go to work on
Monday, December 1, because he had to go to class and
Howell had told him that if he could not work the entire
day he was not to show up that day. That evening
Blackburn called District Manager Dean Gantt and told
him about the change in his schedule. Gantt explained to
Blackburn the Company felt that the hours at the store had
been tailored for the benefit of the employees rather than
that of Safeway, but he offered to meet Blackburn at the
store Tuesday morning.
Blackburn went to the store on Tuesday and told Howell
he was going to class from 8 a .m. to 12 noon, but to tell
Gantt he had been there and would return after class. Gantt
did not appear at the store that day.
Blackburn did not work on Tuesday, but he asked Howell
required to don aprons before clocking in and to remove them before
clocking out The complaint does not allege these changes to have been
violative of either Section 8(a)( I) or (3) of the Act
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
if he could work on Wednesday, his day off, on the
possibility that Gantt would come in and he could see him.7
Howell agreed.
On Wednesday, Blackburn reported for work to find a
new meatcutter at work He asked Howell about it and
'Howell merely told him he had been told to put Glass to
work on Blackburn 's schedule. Blackburn thereupon wrote
his resignation as follows:
I am leaving Safeway Number 256 in Bryan, Texas,
because I can 't live on eight hours per week If in the
future I can be provided forty hours as I have been in
the last year and a half, I would be pleased to return to
myjob. Many thanks.
Cary W. Blackburn.
Much of the foregoing is in dispute, including what
schedule of hours was assigned to Blackburn on November
29. To the extent that disputed matters are relevant, they
will be discussed hereinafter. Two facts are undisputed:
split shifts were eliminated and Blackburn's work schedule
was changed General Counsel contends that these changes
were unlawfully motivated.
There are several reasons why I conclude that the
changes were unlawfully motivated. First there is the timing
of the changes. Blackburn and Campbell had been working
split shifts ever since they had been employed, and
immediately on the certification of the Union, the split
shifts were eliminated. Respondent contends that this was
the result of certain divisionwide changes in the operation
of the meat department in its stores . One of these changes
involved the shipment of prefab (that is precut) meat to the
store. This change is discussed hereinafter relative to a
reduction in Campbell's hours of work where its relevancy
is clear. I fail to see its relevance to the elimination of split
shifts and the changed work schedules, and there is nothing
in the testimony of Meat Merchandiser Crawford, who
prepared the November 29 work schedule, to link up the
prefab operation to the changes he made in the work
schedules.
The other change was the institution of a "row program"
whereby meats are displayed in rows so that employees can
spot what items need'replenishing and what needs cutting.
Allegedly this program required the attendance of meatcut-
ters for more hours of the store's operation. However, not
only had the "row program" been instituted at least at the
district level about 1 1/2 years before November 1969, but
also the record does not support the claim that the "row
program" required the elimination of split shifts or the
changes in the work schedules.
There is a dispute as to what Blackburn's new work
schedule was to be as a result of the changes of November
29. According to Respondent, Blackburn's schedule was
not as he described above, but as appears in Respondent's
Exhibit 1. Comparing that exhibit with Respondent's
Exhibit 4, which is concededly Blackburn's pre-November
29 schedule, Crawford explained the reasons for the
changes. Apart from the switch of Perry Howell's day off
from Wednesday to Monday, the other changes merely
served to provide department coverage to later in the day.
Thus, the changes made by Crawford resulted in 3 more
hours' coverage on Monday from 4 to 7 p.m.; 1 hour more
on Tuesday from 5 to 6 p.m.; 1 1/2 hours more on
Wednesday from 5:30 to 7 p.m.; no significant change on
Thursday; and 1 hour more both on Friday and Saturday
from 7 to 8 p.m These do not appear to be very significant
changes and, apart from the switch of Howell's day off, the
desired objective of more extended coverage could have
been achieved by reverting to the work schedule in effect
before the elimination of the split shift. Under that
schedule, there was coverage until 8 p.m. every night except
Tuesday; the department was covered at 6 a.m on
Monday, 7 a.m. other days, and 8 a.m. on Wednesday. In
short, the record does not indicate any basis for the
particular schedule prepared by Crawford instead of some
other schedule.
This brings us to the manner in which the work schedules
were prepared. When the split shifts were eliminated on or
about November 8, it was done on the orders of District
Manager Gantt who told Luckie who told Howell who told
Blackburn and Campbell. No one in this chain of
command was told the reason for the change. The new
work schedule was prepared by Store Manager Luckie
without consultation with Howell who normally prepared
the work schedules, and there is no explanation how it was
prepared. When the work schedules were changed again on
November 29, Crawford consulted neither Luckie nor
Howells In addition to the failure of both Luckie and
Crawford to consult among themselves about the work
schedules to be adopted, there is the failure to give any
consideration to the class schedules of Blackburn and
Campbell, plus the failure to notify them that the changes
were contemplated to give them an opportunity to suggest
alternative schedules that would still suit Safeway's ends.
Granted Respondent had no obligation to consult them,
but in view of its past practice of working out a mutually
satisfactory work and class schedule, its cavalier disregard
of the possibility of conflicts between the two suggests a
motive to compel them to quit work in order to continue in
college. The refusal to permit Campbell and Blackburn to
switch schedules, although perhaps only a temporary
solution (of 2 months' duration, rather than 2 weeks') gives
added support to the inference of unlawful motivation. The
refusal in February 1970 to give Campbell proof of his
employment and work schedule for submission to the
college is yet another indication of unlawful motivation.
Respondent was not being asked at that time to accommo-
date its work needs to Campbell's class needs. The sole
extent of the cooperation requested was verification of
employment.
The foregoing circumstances persuade me that Respon-
dent was unlawfully motivated in eliminating split shifts.
Added proof is to be found in the testimony of District
Manager Dean Gantt. He testified that the split shifts in use
at store 256 were not desirable without, however, specifying
in what ways. According to him, this had long been the
7 According to Gantt, Blackburn called him on Tuesday night and he November 29 schedule was prepared by Luckie; according to Campbell,
agreed to meet him on Wednesday He did not go to the store on Howell said it was prepared by Luckie. himself, and Crawford
Wednesday , because he learned that Blackburn quit that morning 1 credit Respondent ' s witnesses uniformly assert that Crawford prepared the
Gantt's version of the chronology schedule 1 credit them on this point
8 According to Blackburn, Howell told him and Campbell the
SAFEWAY STORES 935
case, but nothing had been done about it because of a
shortage of meatcutters, and although he testified the
shortage was relieved he did not indicate on what date or
give any details which would show how this related to store
256 and the elimination of split shifts on or about
November 8.
But these are negative factors. A positive factor
supporting a finding of unlawful motivation is Gantt's
testimony about the reasons for eliminating the split shifts.
On direct examination this testimony was very generalized,
and he never did state clearly why the split shifts were
eliminated. When he was asked that specific question on
cross-examination, this was his reply:
A. I called the store manager at the new store in
Bryan and told him that, as we were preparing our set-
up, that after the contract, which hadn't been ratified or
settled, or anything, that we had no other store in my
other thirteen stores that we worked split shifts in. We
had done this in these two stores in Bryan because we
have a number of college kids here, especially in the
grocery section, to where it enables them to work their
way through school. And I had been doing this and
permitted it up until this, and I knew that some of the
stores that I have are under contract, some are not, but
the rest of the stores we do not have split shifts or
swapping of hours, and I called him and I said, "We're
just as well to start preparing our workload without the
use of split shifts. We should just as well get used to it
now because it's coming."
Q. In other words, you decided to cut out the split
shifts before the union, either union, won the election?
A. It was-yes, yes.
Q. So that you were assuming that the union would
win the election, either union would win the election,
therefore you would have to go and abolish the split
shifts9
A No, I just decided to do away with all of it
because, get all of them alike, because I have been
trying to fix our schedules to where we could work it
around where they could work split shifts for the
employees to get in more hours.
Q. Well, why did you pick that time to cut out split
shifts in Bryan?
A. I had to do it sometime.
In my judgment, Gantt, in effect, admitted that the
elimination of the split shifts was related to the fact that the
Union had been certified. Although he testified the decision
was made before the Union won the election, I do not
credit him. The undeniable fact is that the split shifts were
not eliminated until after the Union was certified.
There is other evidence that the elimination of the split
shifts was related to union activities. Thus, Blackburn
testified on cross-examination by counsel for Respondent
that in the grocery department Luckie "took the schoolboys
and put them on the midnight shifts working to 3:00 in the
mornings, and hours which made it hard for them to go to
school, and as a result of that they had a complete turnover
of all schoolboy help in the grocery action." Although I
have found Blackburn to be an unreliable witness, this
testimony was uncontradicted, and I credit it. What he
described is in conformity with Gantt's testimony above.
No explanation was offered for the elimination of split
shifts in the grocery department. All that appears in the
record are the facts that an election had also been held in
that department as a result of which the Retail Clerks were
certified, and that after a contract had been negotiated
Respondent reinstituted split shifts in the grocery depart-
ment.
When all the foregoing circumstances are considered, it is
abundantly clear that the elimination of split shifts and the
changes in the work schedules were unlawfully motivated.
Since Blackburn was one of the principal supporters of the
Union, it is clear that by causing him to quit, and thereby
constructively discharging him, Respondent could under-
mine the Union and enhance its bargaining position. I find
this was Respondent's motivation.
There is testimony apart from that descnbed above to
support the foregoing conclusion, but it is in dispute. Thus,
Campbell testified that when the split shifts were eliminat-
ed, Howell told him and Blackburn that Luckie was
pressuring him and they would have to toe the mark
because everything they did wrong Luckie was on him
about it. Howell said that Luckie was following the union
contract and that until they had a union contract there was
nothing that could be done. He said this was generally the
course of action following an election. Blackburn essential-
ly corroborates Campbell.
Howell denied making any such remarks. I was not
impressed by Howell, much of whose testimony was elicited
by leading questions and which contained few details.
Moreover, Respondent's conduct in eliminating the split
shifts and changing work schedules and Howell's alleged
remarks fit well together. However, that fit could well be
the product of some "looking back" by Blackburn and
Campbell. In balance, my distrust of the testimony of
Blackburn and Campbell constrains me to credit Howell's
denials, and I do not rely on remarks they attributed to
Howell evidencing an unlawful motive for the changes in
finding that the changes were motivated by unlawful
considerations.
As noted earlier, as a result of the changes in the work
schedule posted on November 29, Blackburn quit, giving as
his reason that the new schedule permitted him to work
only 8 hours per week on Saturday. If his new schedule was
as he descnbed it, this was in fact the case. If the new
schedule was as indicated by Respondent's Exhibit 1, and if
Blackburn's class schedule was as he descnbed it (there is
no contrary testimony on this point), he could not work on
Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. In other words, he
could work 8 hours more under the work schedule which
Respondent claims it put into effect on November 29 than
under the schedule which Blackburn described from his
recollection. Blackburn was positive he was not scheduled
to work on Wednesday and Campbell corroborated him.
The only evidence tending to support Blackburn, beyond
his and Campbell's assertion, is the fact that his letter of
resignation stated that he "can't live on eight hours per
week." The fact that this was written before the charge was
filed and that Respondent did not dispute his assertion at
the time he submitted his resignation are factors tending to
support Blackburn and Campbell. They are overcome,
however, by the fact that if Blackburn was not scheduled to
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work on Wednesday, then Howell was the only meatcutter
working on Wednesday, because Campbell was off duty
also. This obviously could not be. The work schedules in
effect before the election never had both Blackburn and
Campbell off duty on the same day. In addition, according
to Blackburn's own testimony the new meatcutter, Clifton
Glass, was working on Wednesday when Blackburn
reported for work, allegedly because of special permission
from Howell so he could meet Gantt. If Blackburn had not
been scheduled to work on Wednesday, why was his
replacement working that day? In addition , since Howell
had not made up the work schedule, it is inconceivable that
he would have given special permission to Blackburn to
work on Wednesday merely so Blackburn could meet
Gantt. I find, therefore, that Blackburn's work schedule
was as appears in Respondent's Exhibit 1.9
In the final analysis, whether or not Blackburn was
scheduled to work on Wednesday is not dispositive of the
allegation that he was constructively discharged, because
under Respondent's schedule Blackburn's hours were
reduced from 40 to 16 if he chose to continue to attend
college. Since the split shifts were eliminated and the work
schedules adopted for unlawful reasons, I find that by
assigning Blackburn the work schedule of November 29
Respondent compelled Blackburn to quit and constructive-
ly discharged him in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.
As part of the allegation that Respondent reduced
Campbell's hours of work for discriminatory reasons, infra,
General Counsel adduced evidence that when Campbell
resumed college in February 1970, Store Manager Luckie
refused to give him a letter to the college advising the
college of Campbell's work schedule so that his class
schedule could be adjusted to permit Campbell to work.
This refusal was not alleged as an independent violation of
the Act, but evidence with regard thereto was proffered by
General Counsel to forestall a future assertion by
Respondent that had Campbell been assigned 40 hours of
work he would not have been able to fulfill the assignment
due to a conflict with his class schedule. At the hearing, I
indicated to Respondent my disposition to treat this issue
as an independent unfair labor practice. As can readily be
seen from the discussion above, the denial of such a letter is
inseparable from Respondent's elimination of split shifts
and the assignment of work schedules that would preclude
employee students from continuing both work and college.
No explanation was offered for the denial. Accordingly, I
find that the denial of a letter to the college to Campbell
was also violative of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act and I
shall recommend an appropriate remedy.
F. The Issuance of Written Warnings to Billy
Campbell
On January 9, Billy Campbell was asked by meatcutter
Clifton Glass how he liked his work schedule. Campbell
had been scheduled to work till 8 p.m. on Thursday, Friday,
and Saturday, and he remarked to Glass that "by that time
every night all the snakes had gone home."
Shortly thereafter, Meat Department Supervisor Perry
Howell called Campbell aside and showed Campbell a
personnel form labeled a "Corrective Action Record." This
form lists 17 items of employee deficiencies plus I item for
"other." Check marks had been placed by five items:
Wasting time , quantity of work, lack of cooperation,
disregard of established rule known to the employee, and
failure to follow instructions . Campbell told Howell that
none of these items applied to him, that they had got rid of
Blackburn and were trying to get rid of him. Howell told
Campbell he acted like he had a chip on his shoulder.
Campbell said he was doing the very best job he could
despite the fact he was receiving apprentice pay.
Store Manager Luckie walked in and asked Campbell if
he thought Howell and Luckie were snakes and Campbell
replied it appeared that was the way it was. Luckie retorted,
"If you think that about us, why don't you get your time
card and punch out?" Campbell said that was what Luckie
would like him to do. Luckie said he had been watching
Campbell the past 2 or 3 weeks and Campbell had been
"dog-assing" around and wasn't working very hard.
Campbell denied the charge. Luckie told him if he wanted
to keep his job he had better not get caught "dragging." He
said all it would take is one more written warning to fire
him. Campbell told Luckie he thought it took three written
warnings to warrant discharge.
According to Campbell, the written warning shown him
by Howell had been prepared in duplicate and when he told
Luckie it took three such warnings to warrant discharge,
Luckie said he would make one of the warnings his own
and all they would need would be one more to fire him.
Campbell signed both of them and so did Howell and
Luckfe. In a space provided for the employee' s statement,
Campbell wrote: "This is a lie ." Campbell asked Luckie for
copies of the warnings and when Luckie refused Campbell
drew his attention to the fact that the form expressly stated
that a copy was to be given to the employee. Luckie went to
the front of the store and made two copies which he gave to
Campbell. The copies were identical except that one bore
Campbell's classification.
The warning form provides: "Fully explain items
checked. Give date and time of specific incident involved."
Campbell testified he had asked Howell to explain the items
checked and that Howell was unable to tell him what he
had been doing wrong other than that Campbell had a chip
on his shoulder and Howell wanted him to be cooperative.
Luckie's only explanation to Campbell was that he had
been "dog-assing."
The copies of the written warnings given to Campbell
were introduced into evidence, and they do not contain any
entries under the heading "Fully explain items checked."
Respondent introduced into evidence written warnings
which Howell identified as the original written warnings
shown to Campbell. On the first of these, the same items
checkmarked on Campbell's copy are not only check-
9 Blackburn 's testimony on this issue played a significant part in my other meat department employees , particularly Clifton Glass, who
conclusion that he was not a credible witness , and Campbell 's credibility succeeded to Blackburn 's work schedule For some unexplained reason,
was adversely affected when he corroborated Blackburn It appears to me neither the General Counsel nor Respondent explored these supplemental
that more light could have been shed on this issue , either by timecards or sources to lend support to their witnesses
SAFEWAY STORES 937
marked, but in addition each item is numbered 1 through 5
and under the "Fully explain items checked" space appear
the following notations:
(1) Not produce enough
(2) Not satisfactory
(3) Not cooperting [sic] on work at all
(4) Pay no attion [sic ] to rule on time clock
(5) Gat [sic ] about half of what he is told to do
In addition, under the heading "Corrective Effort
Required" appeared the notation: "EST [sic] to do the
work that he is capable of doing and cooperate."
The second written warning identified by Howell has the
same five items of employee deficiencies checkmarked as
the first, plus a checkmark numbered 6 by "other." Under
"Fully explain items checked" appear the following
notations:
(1) Same as No. 1
(2) Same as No. 1
(3) Same as No. 1
(4) Same as No. 1
(5) Same as No. 1
(6) Insinuating that he was working with a bunch of
snakes
Corrective Effort Required:
Same as No. I
To quit insinuating and go to work
According to Howell, the entries just described were on
the written warnings he showed to Campbell, and, in
contradiction of Campbell, Howell said he went over the
items checked with Campbell. Thus, "wasting time" related
to Campbell's walking around on the grocery floor when he
should have been in the cutting room; "quantity of work"
meant that the quantity of Campbell's work was not up to
Safeway's specifications ; "lack of cooperation" meant
Campbell did not cooperate; "disregard to the rules" was a
reference to Campbell's having asked another employee to
punch his timecard out for him; and "failure to follow
instructions" referred to Campbell's failure to follow
instructions on a list that Howell would customarily leave
with him.
According to Howell, he had been in the process of
talking to Campbell about the first warning when Luckie
came in and asked Campbell if he had called them
"snakes"; when Campbell admitted he had, Luckie told
Howell to fill out another written warning and to put the
insinuation on it . Howell then filled out the second written
warning which was the same as the first except for the sixth
item.
Store Manager Luckie testified that he joined Howell and
Campbell at the end of their talk about Howell's warning to
Campbell and that he asked Campbell if he had called him
a "snake." Campbell admitted he had and Luckie told
Howell to make out a written warning for him on the same
things he had included in his written warning, plus
Campbell's insinuation that he was working with a "bunch
of snakes."
Luckie testified the written warnings were as they appear
in Respondent's Exhibits 2 and 3 and that when Campbell
asked for copies, he made out copies for him. However,
Campbell was on his lunch hour, and neither Luckie nor
Campbell was too happy, so Luckie in his haste omitted
from the copies given Campbell the notations under "Fully
explain items checked" and "Corrective efforts required"
which appeared on the originals.
The issue presented by the warning letters is whether they
were issued to Campbell because of his union activities. If
Campbell was not guilty of the conduct ascribed to him,
given his prominence in the organizational campaign, one
would be fully justified in finding that the warnings were
unlawfully motivated. Campbell says he was not guilty and
inscribed his denial of guilt on the warning notice when he
wrote "This is a lie ." In addition, Campbell described a
conversation which, if credited , could only be construed as
proof that the warnings were unlawfully motivated.
For reasons given earlier , I do not credit Campbell. In
addition , I note that although he wrote "This is a lie" on the
warning letters , at least two items were true : Campbell had
disregarded company rules when he had another employee
punch his timecard, and Campbell referred to Howell and
Luckie as "snakes ." Moreover, if either Howell or Luckie
wanted an excuse to discharge Campbell and needed three
written warnings , instead of listing several items on one
warning letter , I assume separate written warnings could
have been issued for the separate offenses . In crediting
Luckie and Howell , I have not overlooked the implausible
explanation for giving to Campbell copies of the written
warnings which were different from the originals . Luckie's
explanation that it never dawned on him to give the carbon
copies to Campbell is no explanation, and even if Campbell
was on his lunch hour when Luckie prepared copies to give
to him Luckie could always have told him the copies would
be ready after lunch. However , experience teaches that
people do not always behave logically or reasonably
particularly in times of stress, and since I have no faith in
Campbell's veracity , I credit Luckie 's and Howell 's versions
of the incident of the written warnings and I find the
evidence insufficient to support a finding that the warnings
were issued because of Campbell 's union activities.
G. The Reduction in Campbell's Hours of Work
As stated earlier , since shortly after he was hired,
Campbell had been working 40 hours per week. On January
2, 1970, he was told that his hours of work per week were
being reduced to 22 because the meat department had to
operate on the basis of $50 in sales per manhour in labor.
The complaint alleges that Respondent reduced Campbell's
hours of work for discriminatory reasons.
Respondent's witnesses testified that during the late
summer and fall of 1969, the Company was experimenting
with a new system of meat merchandizing (refer red to as
cryovac or prefab) pursuant to which meat is cut at a
central warehouse and shipped to stores precut. This system
reduced the amount of labor required at the store and an
adjustment in the ratio of sales to manhours in each store
was required . In store 256 the ratio was changed from $42
to $50 sales per manhour. To achieve that ratio, based on
the store's sales, it was necessary to reduce the hours of
work in the meat department by 18 hours and Campbell
was selected for the reduction.
General Counsel contends that proof of the discriminato-
ry motivation for the reduction in hours is found in the
evidence that Campbell was the only employee whose hours
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were reduced, that no explanation was given for his
selection, and that after Campbell's hours were cut the
other meat department employees worked overtime.
The only evidence proffered by General Counsel about
the number of overtime hours worked by meat department
employees after January 2 was Campbell's testimonial
assertion that in the week after the cut in his hours, Howell
worked 10 hours' overtime, meatcutter Glass 3 hours, and
meatwrapper Santana 8 hours. Respondent offered no
contrary evidence. After January 9, because of the loss of a
part-time meatwrapper, the full-time wrapper, Mrs. Santa-
na, worked 8 hours' overtime until a new part-time wrapper
was hired. The record does not indicate when this
happened.
I conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support a
finding that the reduction of Campbell's hours from 40 to
22 was discriminatorily motivated. It is undisputed that
Respondent adopted a new method of processing meats,
that this method reduced cutting time at the store, which
meant there was a lesser need for meatcutters, and that the
costs of the new method had to be absorbed by the stores.
While the assignment of overtime hours to Howell and
Glass during the first week of Campbell's reduced hours
brings into question Respondent's motives, I do not believe
the issue can be decided by focusing on that week alone.
There is no evidence they worked overtime thereafter, and I
cannot predicate a finding of discrimination on the fact
that Campbell was not called to work when a beef sale was
more successful than had been anticipated. The critical fact
is that the total manhours worked in January and February
1970 was less than had been worked for several months
preceding and the sales per manhour were higher than they
had been for all of 1969. The assignment of overtime to
Mrs. Santana affords no support for a finding of
discrimination. Respondent's needs were for a meatwrap-
per, not a meatcutter. While Campbell could wrap meat this
was not the type of work for which he had been hired.
Finally, putting aside any semantic dispute over Campbell's
status as either a full- time or part-time employee, he was a
college student. His employment would not therefore be
viewed as having the same degree of permanency as that of
an employee who looked to his skill as a meatcutter as a
lifetime occupation. It appears this was the case with
Clifton Glass, the only other meatcutter in store 256. In the
circumstances, no discriminatory motivation can be
inferred from the selection of Campbell for the reduction in
hours. I shall, therefore recommend that this allegation of
the complaint be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Safeway Stores, Inc., is an employer 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, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 408, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By eliminating split shifts and changing the work
schedule of Cary Blackburn, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. By canceling Billy Campbell's wage increase because
a petition had been filed, and by denying him proof of
employment for use at college , Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices
as alleged in paragraphs 7(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), and (g) and 10
of the complaint , as amended.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent canceled Billy
Campbell's raise for unlawful reasons, I shall recommend
that it be ordered to put his raise into effect and that it
make him whole by paying him the amount of the raise for
the number of hours he worked from the date the raise
would have gone into effect but for its unlawful cancella-
tion to the date that Respondent puts the raise into effect.
As I have found that Respondent was unlawfully
motivated in the elimination of split shifts and the change
in work schedules thereby constructively discharging Cary
Blackburn, I shall recommend that it be ordered to offer
Cary Blackburn immediate and full reinstatement to his
former position , or, if it no longer exists , to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges, including, if necessary, restora-
tion of the split shifts and assignment of work in the
manner followed before the unlawful changes found herein
and providing the necessary evidence of work assignments
to Blackburn for use at college. I shall also recommend that
Respondent be ordered to make Blackburn whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to that which he normally would have earned
as wages from the date of his constructive discharge to the
date of the offer of reinstatement less net earnings , to which
shall be added interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum in
accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent
strike at the very heart of employees' rights safeguarded by
the Act. I shall therefore recommend that Respondent be
placed under a broad order to cease and desist from in any
manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing
Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, I hereby issue the
following:
SAFEWAY STORES 939
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent, Safeway Stores, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act by canceling approved raises because a labor
organization filed a petition for an election with the
National Labor Relations Board, and by telling employees
of the cancellation of a pay raise for such reason.
(b) Undermining Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local
Union No. 408, and discouraging membership in or
activities on behalf of said labor organization by canceling
approved raises because the said labor organization filed a
petition for an election with the National Labor Relations
Board, and by eliminating split shifts and constructively
discharging employees, by withholding proof of employ-
ment for use at college, or by otherwise discriminating in
regard to the hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
conditions of employment of its employees.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, or to
refrain from any or all activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Put into effect the raise previously approved for Billy
Campbell, and make him whole by paying him the amount
of the raise for the number of hours he worked from the
date the raise would have gone into effect but for its
unlawful cancellation to the date that Respondent puts the
raise into effect.
(b) Offer Cary Blackburn immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former position or, if it no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights or privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to the amount he normally would have earned
as wages from the date of his constructive discharge to the
date of his reinstatement in the manner set forth in the
section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Notify Cary Blackburn if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service and Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to a determination of the amounts of backpay
due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(e) Post at its stores in Bryan, Texas,i° copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 23, shall, after being duly signed by the Respon-
dent's authorized representative, be posted by the Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.i2
As to the allegations of the complaint found not to have
been supported by the evidence, it is recommended that
they be dismissed.
10 Although the unfair labor practices occurred only at store 256, both
Bryan, Texas, stores constitute the certified unit , and there is evidence of
some interchange of employees between the two stores In these
circumstances , and since the unfair labor practices found were designed to
undermine the certified bargaining representative , in order to fully
effectuate the policies of the Act, it is necessary and appropriate that the
notice be posted at both stores
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions, recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
12 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Decision, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to
post this notice.
WE WILL NOT cancel approved raises because a union
files a petition for an election and WE WILL make Billy
Campbell whole for the amount of wages he lost
because we canceled a raise that had been approved for
him.
WE WILL NOT eliminate split shifts, change work
schedules, or deny employees proof of employment for
use at college in order to undermine Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 408, or because employees
have been active in behalf of, or support, that labor
organization, or any other labor organization.
By eliminating split shifts and changing work
schedules, we forced Cary Blackburn to quit, and, in
effect, discharged him. WE WILL offer him his job back
and WE WILL pay him for any loss of pay he suffered
because we discharged him.
940 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become or remain members
of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 408, or any
other labor organization.
Dated By
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
SAFEWAY STORES, INC. anyone.
(Employer) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
(Representative) (Title)
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
Note: We will notify the above-named employee if its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 6617
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas
of his right to full reinstatement upon application in 77002, Telephone 713-226-4721.