NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,593, BIG Y FOODS, INC. and LOCAL 371, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO aw UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO., (Dec. 21, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Dec 21, 1994)

BIG Y FOODS, INC. and LOCAL 371, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO aw UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO.

315 NLRB No. 135.Case Nos. 34-CA-6292, -6305 and -6427. December 21, 1994 Lowell M. Goerlich, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Browning and Cohen.

John Gross, for General Counsel. Ralph F. Abbott and Richard Stubbs, Springfield, Massachusetts, for Respondent. Sidney Fox, New York, New York, for Union.

Access to Company Property--Picketing and/or Handbilling--Disparate Treatment of Union.--By denying a union access to its property for the purpose of solicitation and informational picketing, while at the same time permitting charitable or nonprofit community service organizations to freely solicit on its premises, an employer interfered with its employees’ right to select a bargaining representative. The charitable solicitations occured at the same time and location as union agents’ handbilling, but only the nonemployee union representatives were ordered to leave the employer’s private property. Section 8(a)(1).

Back reference: ¶3825.6644.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The principal issue presented here is whether the judge correctly found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discriminatorily denying nonemployee union representatives access to private property surrounding the Respondent’s grocery stores. [1] The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and had decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, [2] and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified. [3]

¹	On July 22, 1994, Administrative Law Judge Lowell M. Goerlich issued the attached decision. Both the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The General Counsel and the Charging Party also filed reply briefs. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
²	The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. [19 LC ¶66,308] 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
³	The Respondent excepts to the judge’s recommendation that it post copies of the Board’s remedial notice at all of its store properties, rather than at only the six stores where the Respondent actually denied access to the Union. We find a companywide posting requirement appropriate in light of the judge’s finding that the Respondent unlawfully denied access at the six stores pursuant to companywide solicitation guidelines which discriminatorily exclude unions. On the other hand, we find no need in this case for the judge’s recommended remedial provision requiring the Respondent to grant the Union access to its premises for the purposes of making up for those times that the Respondent unlawfully denied access. In accord with Board remedial precedent for the unlawful discriminatory denial of access to an employer’s private property, we shall delete the affirmative access requirement and order the Respondent to cease and desist from such unlawful conduct. See, e.g., Richards United Super, [1992-93 CCH NLRB ¶17,425] 308 NLRB 201, 202-203 (1992).

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,593, BIG Y FOODS, INC. and LOCAL 371, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO aw UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO., (Dec. 21, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Dec 21, 1994)

BIG Y FOODS, INC. and LOCAL 371, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO aw UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO.

315 NLRB No. 135.Case Nos. 34-CA-6292, -6305 and -6427. December 21, 1994 Lowell M. Goerlich, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Browning and Cohen.

John Gross, for General Counsel. Ralph F. Abbott and Richard Stubbs, Springfield, Massachusetts, for Respondent. Sidney Fox, New York, New York, for Union.

Back reference: ¶3825.6644.

From Text of Board’s Decision

¹	On July 22, 1994, Administrative Law Judge Lowell M. Goerlich issued the attached decision. Both the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The General Counsel and the Charging Party also filed reply briefs. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
²	The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. [19 LC ¶66,308] 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
³	The Respondent excepts to the judge’s recommendation that it post copies of the Board’s remedial notice at all of its store properties, rather than at only the six stores where the Respondent actually denied access to the Union. We find a companywide posting requirement appropriate in light of the judge’s finding that the Respondent unlawfully denied access at the six stores pursuant to companywide solicitation guidelines which discriminatorily exclude unions. On the other hand, we find no need in this case for the judge’s recommended remedial provision requiring the Respondent to grant the Union access to its premises for the purposes of making up for those times that the Respondent unlawfully denied access. In accord with Board remedial precedent for the unlawful discriminatory denial of access to an employer’s private property, we shall delete the affirmative access requirement and order the Respondent to cease and desist from such unlawful conduct. See, e.g., Richards United Super, [1992-93 CCH NLRB ¶17,425] 308 NLRB 201, 202-203 (1992).

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,593, BIG Y FOODS, INC. and LOCAL 371, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO aw UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO., (Dec. 21, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Dec 21, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

Footnotes

NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,593, BIG Y FOODS, INC. and LOCAL 371, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO aw UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO., (Dec. 21, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Dec 21, 1994)

From Text of Board’s Decision

Footnotes