The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 918 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-eral Counsel on appeal. Under these circumstances, the striking em-
ployees are economic strikers, subject to replacement at the will of
the Employer. As the record discloses that all the employees on strike
.have been permanently replaced, we find that they are not eligible to
-vote in the elections directed herein.10
There is also evidence in the record that in the fall of 1952 and in
.the spring of 1953, the Employer, for economic reasons, laid off ap-
proximately 200 employees. At the time of the hearings the Employer
had recalled or rehired approximately 15 to 20 of the 200 laid-off em-
.ployees. It further appears that the Employer's present work force,
numbering approximately 214 employees, is adequately handling its
-current production requirements and that the Employer anticipates
no increase in the near future in the size of its present complement of
employees. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that
-these laid-off employees have no reasonable expectation of employ-
ment in the near future, we find, in accord with our well-established
policy, that they are not eligible to vote in the elections directed
herein.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
10 See Times Square Stores Corporation, 79 NLRB 361
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY ( PITTSBURGH BAK-
ERY) and CATHERINE KARDELL
BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 12, A. F. L. and CATHERINE KARDELL. Cases No..
6-CA-778 and 6-CB-209. November 18, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon charges filed on September 22, 1953, and November 25, 1953,
by Catherine Kardell, an individual, the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the General Counsel, by
the Regional Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania), issued a consolidated complaint dated March 26, 1954, against
Bakery & Confectionery Workers' International Union of America,
Local 12, A. F. L., herein called the Union, and against The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (Pittsburgh Bakery), herein called
the Company, alleging that the Respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2), Section 8 (a) (3)
and (1), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges and
110 NLRB No. 146.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 919
complaint together with notice of hearing were duly served upon the
Respondents and the Charging Party.
The complaint as amended alleged that the Company had discrimi-
natorily discharged Catherine Kardell in violation of Section 8 (a)
(3) and (1) of the Act, that the Union had caused the Company so to
discriminate, thereby violating Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the
Act, and that the Union by the posting of a notice requiring mem-
bers delinquent in their dues to pay certain fines as a condition of em-
ployment had independently violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the
Act. The Respondents filed answers denying the principal allegations
of the complaint and asserting affirmatively that the discharge of
Catherine Kardell was in pursuance of a lawful union-security provi-
sion in their collective-bargaining agreement.
Pursuant to notice, a consolidated hearing was held in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, on April 12, 1954, before C. W. Whittemore, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Gen-
eral Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondents were repre-
sented and participated in the hearing. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to_be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
At the close of the General Counsel's case, the Respondents moved
to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the
motions. At the close of the hearing, the parties waived oral argu-
ment, but subsequently the General Counsel filed a memorandum of
law, the Company filed a brief, and the Charging Party submitted
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. During the course
of the hearing, and in his Intermediate Report, the Trial Examiner
made rulings on other motions and on the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed these rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On May 17, 1954, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. In the Inter-
mediate Report, the Trial Examiner found that the Respondents had
not engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion.8 (b) (1) (A) and (2), and 8 (a) (3) and (1), respectively, of
the Act, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Com-
pany filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and brief, and the entire record, and, to the extent indicated herein-
after, finds the exceptions to have merit.
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company is a New Jersey corpora-
tion engaged in the operation of retail food stores, bakeries, and food
processing plants throughout the United States. As an integral part
of its national bakery division, it operates the Pittsburgh Bakery, the
one facility herein involved, at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
During the past year, the Company sold and shipped bakery prod-
ucts valued at about $1,500,000, of which total products valued at about
$450,000 were shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
The Respondent Company concedes, and we find, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Bakery & Confectionery Workers' International Union of America,
Local 12, A. F. L., is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Respondent Company at its Pittsburgh Bakery.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Events
The Respondents are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement
which provides that "all employees shall maintain their union mem-
bership in good standing by the regular payment of dues and initiation
fees as a condition of continued employment."
On August 17, 1953, the Union posted a notice on the bulletin board
at the Company's plant reading as follows :
August 17,1953.•
To All Members of Local Union No. 12
Beginning with September no delinquent notices will be sent to
members in arrears with their dues.
Dues that are not paid in the current month will be assessed
one dollar ($1.00) and any member owing two months dues must
pay all dues and assessment on the 15th day of the second month.
Failure to pay all dues and assessment on or before the 15th
day of the second month will result in being removed from the
job.'
i The Union's constitution provides that members must pay dues on or before the last
day of the month, or they will be subject to a $1 assessment. The constitution further
provides that "if the delinquent dues plus the $1 assessment are not paid on or before
the 15th of the following month, such delinquent employees will then be removed from
their jobs." The "Book of Laws" of the Union's International provides that "no dues
shall be accepted by local unions unless all outstanding fines and assessments have since
been paid in full by the employee."
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 921
Neither C. L. McGee, the bakery manager, nor G. R. Starkey, the
Company's operating superintendent, had approved this particular
notice, nor had they apparently seen it before posting.
On September 4, 1953, the Union posted another notice listing the
names of 27 employees who owed dues for July or August 1953. This
notice was intended to take the place of individual written delinquency
notices which heretofore had been sent to delinquent members. The
name of the Charging Party, Catherine Kardell, appeared on the list
as owing dues for July 1953. However, Kardell did not see this no-
tice and accordingly did not get in touch with the Union. On or about
September 18, 1953, Joseph Sullivan, the Union's financial secretary,
called Bakery Manager McGee by telephone and requested that 11
employees, including the Charging Party, be discharged because of
dues delinquency. McGee, thereupon tried to contact all the delin-
quent employees to verify the delinquency claims. He spoke to
Kardell the same day and told her of the Union's demand. She re-
plied that she had dues stamps in her union book proving that she
had paid her July and August dues. McGee asked to see the book, but
she failed to show it to him. She was discharged the same day.
On the day following her discharge, Kardell took her book to the
Union's office where she showed it to the union clerk, Betty Lewis.
The book had stamps showing that she had paid her dues for July
and August. Lewis asserted that the July and August dues had been
paid by Ruth Kardell, Catherine Kardell's sister-in-law, and not by
Catherine, and that the stamps had been entered in her book by mis-
take. Lewis thereupon removed the July and August stamps from
Catherine's book.
There is no dispute that the Union requested Catherine Kardell's
discharge because it believed that she was delinquent in her dues and
that the Company complied with this request.
B. Contentions of the parties
The General Counsel contends that: (a) The Union independently
violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act in that it coercively made
the payment of fines in addition to dues a condition of continued em-
ployment; (b) irrespective of whether Catherine Kardell paid her
July and August dues, her discharge was unlawful because it was
made under a union-security provision which had been rendered
invalid by the August 17 notice, approved by the Company, making
the payment of fines plus dues a condition of continued employment;
and (c) in approving the posting of the August 17 notice, the Com-
pany had reasonable cause to believe that the Union was seeking Mrs.
Kardell's discharge for reasons other than her failure to pay periodic
dues. The Charging Party contends that she had in fact paid her
July and August 1953 dues and that the contrary finding of the Trial
922 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Examiner was based on hearsay evidence and unwarranted con-
jecture? The Union denies that it intended to, or did in fact, make
the payment of fines a condition of employment, or that it had re-
quested the Charging Party's discharge for any reason other than
her failure to pay the July and August 1953 dues. The Company
asserts that it gave the Charging Party the opportunity to prove her
paidup status in the Union, and that absent any attempt of such proof,
it was justified in relying on the Union' s assurance that the Charging
Party was delinquent in her dues.
C. Conclusions
1. The August 17 notice
The August 17 notice posted by the Union clearly made the pay-
ment of assessments, imposed as a penalty for dues delinquency, a,
condition of continued employment. The Board, with court approval,
has held in a number of cases '.that assessments and fines imposed for
various reasons are not "periodic dues" within the meaning of the Act
and that their imposition restrains and coerces employees in violation
of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. We do not agree with the Trial
Examiner's reasoning, which he based on analogies to the penalties
imposed by utilities for nonpayment of bills and to discounts allowed
by commercial establishments for the prepayment of bills, that fines
for dues deliquency are "part of the dues structure" and as such, are
"periodic dues" within the meaning of the Act. Such fines are inter-
mittently imposed and by their very nature not "periodic." Their
primary purpose is not to create revenue, but to provide punishment
for nonpayment of dues on time. Accordingly, we find that, by un-
lawfully conditioning employment on the payment of assessments, the
Union restrained and coerced employees in violation of Section 8 (b)
(1) (A) of the Act.'
2. The alleged amended union-security provision
The General Counsel concedes that the union-security clause in the
existing collective-bargaining contract conditioning continued em-
ployment on the "regular payment of dues and initiation fees" is law-
ful. He contends, however, that the posting of the Union's unlawful
notice of August 17 was made with the knowledge or consent of the
Company, and that its effect was to modify the contract union-security
s Although the General Counsel did not specifically allege that Kai-dell had paid her
union dues , he acquiesced in Kardell 's contention to that effect and the subject was fully
litigated at the hearing We therefore consider that the issue of Kardell 's payment of
her dues is properly before the Board for decision
8 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 96 NLRB 522, enfd. sub nom ., N. L. R. B. v.
I. A. M Local 504, 203 F. 2d 173 (C. A. 9) (dual unionism) ; Eclipse Lumber Company,
Inc., 95 NLRB 464, enfd. 199 F. 2d 684 (C. A. 9), cert. denied 342 U. S. 870 (refusal to
picket) ; Electric Auto-Lute Company, 92 NLRB 1073, enfd. 196 F. 2d 500 (C. A. 6),
cert. denied 342 U. S . 823 (failure to attend union meetings).
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 923-
provision by making employment contingent upon the payment of
assessments' as well as of dues. We do not agree that the August
17 notice, although unlawful, had the effect claimed by the General
Counsel. Both McGee and Starkey, the Company's top plant officials,
testified without contradiction that they were not aware of the August
17 notice and had not approved it. Neither is there any evidence that
either official had authority to change any contract provision. In
any event there is no ground for inferring that the Company had
agreed to modify its lawful union-security provision in an unlawful
manner. Accordingly, we reject the General Counsel's contention
that the Company and the Union were parties to an unlawful union-
security arrangement and that the discharge of Kardell therefore
violated Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
3. Kardell's payment of her dues
The Charging Party contended, with the acquiescence of the Gen-
eral Counsel, that she had paid her July and August dues and that her
discharge for alleged nonpayment was therefore unlawful.
It is undisputed that on September 18, 1953, the Charging Party
had in her union book two dues stamps for July and August, which
stamps under the International's "Book of Laws" constitute a valid-
and the only valid-receipt for dues payment. Catherine Kardell
testified that sometime during the first 2 weeks of July 1953, after
getting married, she sent the required change of name form to the
Union, together with her union book and four $1 bills in payment
of her dues for July and August. She explained that, although she
frequently had been tardy with her dues, she then thought that she
might as well pay her August dues in advance, as she had to send in
her book anyway and the Union was cracking down on Union mem-
bers after a recent representation election in which a rival union had
participated. She also testified that she had no checking account and
had for many years been accustomed to sending her dues by mail in
the form of $1 bills. One of her sisters-in-law, Ann Kardell, corrobo-
rated this testimony fully and stated that she saw Catherine put a
number of dollar bills together with the union book and change of
name form in an envelope, and put the envelope into a mail box near
the corner drugstore.
The only evidence offered by the Union in support of its contention
that Catherine Kardell had not paid her dues and had been improperly
credited for the payment of dues for July and August 1953, is the tes-
timony of Union Clerk Betty Lewis and Financial Secretary Sulli-
van. Lewis testified that another clerk had erroneously entered dues
payments made by one of the Charging Party's sisters-in-law, Ruth
Kardell, on Catherine Kardell's file card and that pursuant to this
error the July and August stamps were placed in Catherine's union
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
book when it came back from the International 's office in Chicago
where it had been sent for entry of the name change. Lewis admitted,
however, that she had not been present when the alleged mistake was
made, nor did she identify the clerk who allegedly had made the erro-
neous entry. Sullivan, the Union's financial secretary, admitted that
he could not testify whether or not the July and August dues were
sent to the Union by the Charging Party, and that all he knew was
that payment of such dues was not recorded in the Union's daybook
pages . He further testified that he and a Board agent had gone over
the Union's books and could find "no shortage or overage" for the
months of July and August 1953. He gave no explanation how this
related to the alleged mixup of names and stamps. Nor were the
Union's books, referred to by him, offered in evidence.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find Catherine Kardell's testi-
mony neither confused nor contradictory, but, in fact, find it to be
fully corroborated by the testimony of Ann Kardell. Nor is there any
discrepancy in Catherine Kardell's testimony as to the approximate
date of her dues payment. At the hearing she placed that date at
around the time when another sister-in-law, Ruth, had paid her dues,
which apparently was July 29,1953. As both dates were given approx-
imately, the discrepancy, relied upon by the Trial Examiner, is not
material. Nor can we draw the inference, as the Trial Examiner did,
that it is reasonable to suppose that if the Charging Party had paid
her dues she would have contacted the Union after her name appeared
on the delinquency notice of September 4, because Catherine Kardell
testified without contradiction that she had not seen that notice before
her discharge on September 18.
Union Clerk Lewis' testimony concerning the alleged clerical mis-
take is not based on firsthand knowledge, but on pure hearsay. The
Union's books were not offered in evidence, and Sullivan's testimony
as to their alleged contents is neither the best evidence available nor
conclusive. We, therefore, credit Catherine Kardell's testimony, cor-
roborated as it was by the unchallenged testimony of Ann Kardell,
that she had paid her dues. Accordingly, we reject the Union's defense
of dues delinquency, and find that the Union, by causing the discharge
of Catherine Kardell although she had paid her periodic dues, violated
Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.
4. The case against the Company
The General Counsel charges the Company with having approved
the notice of August 17 and thereby having become chargeable with
knowledge that the Charging Party's discharge was being sought by
the Union for reasons other than failure to pay dues. The credible
and uncontroverted testimony of McGee and Starkey that neither had
approved nor had seen the notice before the discharge, refutes this
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 925
charge. Moreover, neither in September 1953 nor at any other time,
did the Union mention Kardell 's failure to pay assessments or fines
as a reason for asking for her discharge. Also, the delinquency notice
of September 4 speaks only of dues, as does the Union's letter to McGee
confirming the verbal discharge demand.
On the record, we are persuaded that the Company undertook only
to carry out its obligations under the union-security clause.4 McGee
gave the Charging Party the opportunity to submit her union book for
his inspection. As she did not avail herself of this opportunity, and
as there was nothing to indicate to McGee that the Union had any
ulterior motive or animosity toward Mrs. Kardell, McGee was justi-
fied in relying on the assurances of Sullivan that the Union was de-
manding the Charging Party's discharge because of her delinquency
in paying her dues. Accordingly, as the Company had no reasonable
grounds for believing that the Union's discharge request was moti-
vated by reasons other than the Charging Party's alleged failure to
tender her periodic dues, we find that the Company did not violate
Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Kardell.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Union engaged in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2)
of the Act, we shall order the Respondent Union to cease and desist
therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
We shall order the Respondent Union to make Catherine Kardell
whole for any loss of pay suffered by her as the result of the Union's
unlawful conduct, by paying to her a sum of money equal to the amount
she would normally have earned as wages from the date the discrimi-
nation occurred to the date she is reinstated by the Company in ac-
cordance with the latter's normal business operations. In computing
the amount of back pay due to the Charging Party for this period, the
customary formula of the Board set forth in F. W. Woolworth, Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289, shall be applied. As the Trial Examiner did not
find that the Respondent Union had discriminated against the Charg-
ing Party, the period from the date of the Intermediate Report to the
date of the Order herein shall, in accordance with our usual practice,
' Bloomingdale's, 107 NLRB 91, reversed on other grounds, 216 F 2d 285 (C. A 2).
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be excluded in computing the amount of back pay due her .5 We shall
further provide that the Union may terminate its liability for further
accrual of back pay to the Charging Party by notifying the Company
and the Charging Party that it has no objection to her reinstatement.
The Union shall not thereafter be liable for any back pay accruing
after 5 days from the giving of such notice.6
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (Pittsburgh Bakery)
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. Bakery & Confectionery Workers' International Union of Amer-
ica, Local 12, A. F. L., is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By causing the aforementioned Company to discriminate against
the Charging Party in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the
Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the
Act.
4. By restraining and coercing employees of the Company in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent
Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
6. The Respondent Company has not engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent Union, Bakery &
Confectionery Workers' International Union of America, Local 12,
A. F. L., its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Promulgating, posting, keeping posted, or enforcing any notice
or notices making the payment of assessments or fines for the non-
payment of periodic dues a condition of employment.
Utah Construction Co, 95 NLRB 196.
e P,nkerton's Nattonai Detective Agency, Inc., 90 NLRB 205; Local Union 595, Inter-
national Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL, 109
NLRB 73.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 927
(b)' Causing'or attempting to cause The Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea*Company (Pittsburgh Bakery), its officers, agents, successors,-or
assigns, to discriminate against Catherine Kardell or any other em-
ployee in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of The
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (Pittsburgh Bakery), its offi-
cers, agents, successors, or assigns, in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights may
,be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Notify The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (Pitts-
burgh Bakery) and the Charging Party, Catherine Kardell, in writ-
ing that it has no objection to the Company's employment of Cather-
ine Kardell.
(b) Make whole Catherine Kardell for any loss of pay she may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against her, in the manner
set forth in section V entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Post in conspicuous places at the business office of the Respond-
ent Union, and in all places where notices or communications to its
members are customarily posted, copies of the notice attached hereto
and marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, shall, after being duly
signed by the Respondent Union's representative, be posted by the Re-
spondent Union immediately upon the receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail to the Regional Director for the Sixth Region signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A," for post-
ing, the Company willing, on the bulletin boards of the Company at
its bakery in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Such notices are to be posted and maintained
for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days after receipt by the Com-
pany. Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official rep-
resentative of the Respondent Union, be forthwith returned to the
Regional Director for said posting.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, in writ ng,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the s e-
spondent Union has taken to comply herewith.
I In the event that this older is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent Company violated
Section 8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 12, A. F. L., AND TO
ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY
(PITTSBURGH BAKERY)
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our members and the employees of
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (Pittsburgh Bakery)
that:
WE WILL NOT promulgate, post, keep posted, or enforce any
notice or notices making the payment of assessments or fines for
the nonpayment of periodic dues a condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause The Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Company (Pittsburgh Bakery), its officers, agents,
successors, or assigns, to discriminate against Catherine Kardell,
or any other employee in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees
of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (Pittsburgh
Bakery), its officers, agents, successors, or assigns, in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make Catherine Kardell whole for any loss of pay
suffered by her as a result of having caused her discharge by The
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (Pittsburgh Bakery).
IVE WILL notify The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company
(Pittsburgh Bakery) and Catherine Kardell that we have no
objection to the employment of Catherine Kardell.
BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS'
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 12, A. F. L.,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------- By-----------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.