~TNITED STATES OF AMERICA

D
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAR
SUI3REGIQN 30

Iu the Matter of:

WILLY STREET GROCERY CpOPERATIVE,
Employer
Case No.: 18-RC-142975

And

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS

UNION,LOCAL 1473,
Petitioner.
IVE

ERAT
POST-HEARING BRIEF OF WILLY STREET GROCERY C40P

Dated: January 9, 2015

GODFREY &KAHN,S.C.
By: Jon A. Anderson
(608)258-2901
Rufino Gaytan III
(414)287-9572
One East Main Street
Madison, WI 53703
Email: jeanders@gklaw.com
Email: rgaytan@gklaw.com

I.

INTRODUCTION
")filed a

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1473 (the "Union

t a number of

Petition for Certification of Representative (the "Petition") seeking to represen

employees at only one(West)of two (East and West)retail locations of the

Willy Street Grocery

dismissal of the Petition.

Cooperative (the "Co-op"). The Co-op submits this brief in support of
Due to the overwhelming community of interest shared between the Co-op's
at the East and West retail locations, a bargaining unit composed of only

employees

the West retail location

to frame its
employees is not an appropriate bargaining unit. Despite the Union's attempt
proposed bargaining unit as asingle-location unit, the Co-op has presented

unrefuted evidence
g, but not

establishing that the proposed unit is not appropriate for multiple reasons, includin
limited to, the fact that(1) all retail employees have the ability to work at both

retail locations;

subject to
(2) all Co-op facilities are under common management;(3) all Co-op employees are
the same employment policies; and (4)the terms and conditions of employment

for every Co-op

employee are determined by a central management and human resources team.

Because the bargaining unit that the Union seeks to represent, even as amended, is not an
),the

appropriate bargaining unit under the National Labor Relations Act(the "Act" or "NLRA"

l of
Co-op requests that the Regional Director dismiss the Petition.l As an alternative to dismissa
the Petition, the Co-op requests that the Regional Director exercise his discretion under

29

B.D. Ex. 1(a).

~ In the Petition, the Union sought to represent various employees in the Co-op's West retail location,
to the
certain
revisions
to
stipulated
Co-op
the
and
Union
the
matter,
this
in
held
hearing
2015
Prior to the January 2,
g
unit
bargainin
bargaining unit proposed by the Union. See B.D. Ex. 2. The stipulation does not limit the proposed
now
Union
If
the
Ex.
2.
B.D.
with
to the Co-op's West retail location as the Petition did. Compare B,D. Ex. 1(a)
, the Co-op agrees
seeks to represent the employees stated in B.D. Exhibit 2 at both the East and West retail locations
continues to seek
the
Union
that
however,
assume,
will
that such a unit is an appropriate bargaining unit. The Co-op
location.
to represent only the employees at the West retail

U.S.C. 153(a) and determine, based on the Co-op's unrefuted record

evidence, that the

proposed bargaining unit is appropriate if, and only if, it covers the listed

employees at both the

East and West retail locations.

BACKGRO~IND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

II.

ent that

Prior to the filing of the Petition, the Co-op and the Union entered into an agreem

g Transcript(hereafter
the two retail locations were the appropriate unit. See Jan. 2, 2015 Hearin
election on
"Hr'g Tr.") 33:9-21. As part of that agreement, the Co-op agreed to hold an
December 16-17, 2014, with voting to occur between 8:30 a.m. and noon, and

between 2:00 p.m.

never had the

and 6:30 p.in. each day at each location. Hr'g Tr. 35:25-36:16. EmployeesTr. 37:5-8.
opportunity to vote because the Union withdrew from the agreement. See Hr'g
Instead of proceeding with the election as agreed on December 16, 2014, the Union

filed

nt:
the Petition. See B.D. Ex. 1(a). As stated in the Petition, the Union sought to represe
All full time and part time hourly employees employed at the retail
store located at 6825 West University Avenue, in the following job
classifications: Coordinator, Shift Supervisors, Buyers, Meat,
Grocery, Dairy, Deli, Produce, Wellness, Front End, Packer,
Catering, home Delivery Associate, Maintenance/Custodial,
Auditor/Receivers, Depositors, Customer Service Representatives,
Managers on Duty and Rounders.
B.D. Ex. 1(a) at 2. The Union amended the proposed unit as follows on January 2, 2015:
All full time and part time hourly employees in the following job
classifications: Coordinator, Shift Supervisors, Buyers, Meat,
Grocery, Dairy, Deli, Produce, Wellness, Front End,
Maintenance/Custodial, Auditor/Receivers, Customer Service
Representatives, Managers on Duty and Rounders.
B.D. Ex. 2 at 1-2.2
the Co-op assumes
2 Although the amended proposed unit is not limited to employees at the West retail location,
1.
Footnote
See
that the Union is not seeking to represent the same employees at the East retail location.

The unit that the Union seeks to represent, as stated in the Petition and as amended,
differs from the earlier agreement it reached with the Co-op as to the appropriateness of the unit.
Because the Co-op continues to believe that the proposed unit, as originally stated and as
amended, is only appropriate if it covers employees at both retail locations, this matter proceeded
to a hearing on January 2, 2015.
III.
A.

ARGUMENT

The Proposed I3ar~aining Unit Is Not Appropriate.

The bargaining unit proposed by the Union is not the appropriate unit for collective
bargaining purposes under the Act because it is not "the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or
subdivision thereof[.]" 29 U.S.C. 159(b). The proposed bargaining unit is also defective
because it does not clearly describe the employees that the Union seeks to represent.
Even:as amended, the proposed unit mostly refers to departments of the Co-op, as
opposed to specific job classifications to be included in the unit. For example, the meat
department at the Co-op includes a butcher, Hr'g Tr. 20:17-23, the grocery department includes a
stocker, Hr'g Tr. 21:9-13, and the front end department includes cashiers, Hr'g Tr. 22:25-23:2.
The proposed unit does not contain a reference to butchers, stockers or cashiers, B.D. Ex. 2, and
the Union now claims that it simply seeks "to represent employees who might be called
clerks[,]" Hr'g Tr. 189:2-5.
The Union also seeks to represent Auditors/Receivers. B.D. Ex. 2. Auditors/Receivers,
however, are not assigned to a particular retail location, and they regularly work at both
locations. Hr'g Tr. 136:3-15. One reason for this practice is that the Co-op wants to ensure that
the Auditors/Receivers understand the operations and needs of each facility. Hr'g Tr. 136:16-21.

The proposed unit is thus not the entire Co-op or a specific craft or job classification
within the Co-op, nor is it a plant unit because it excludes butchers, stockers and cashiers, and it
is not an identifiable subdivision of any of the preceding units. Further, the inclusion of the
Auditors/Receivers in the proposed unit eliminates the possibility of limiting the unit to a single
retail location. As such, the proposed unit, on its face, is not an appropriate bargaining unit for
collective bargaining purposes.
B.

Tlie Prot~osed 13ar~ainin~ Unit Is Not A Plant Unit.

Even if the proposed unit can be considered a plant unit limited to the West retail
location, the day-to-day interests ofthe employees at the West retail location have merged with
those of other Co-op employees, particularly those at the East retail location. The testimony of
Anya Firszt, the Co-op's General Manager who oversees the entirety of the Co-op's operation,
and Sarah Dahl, who was the Co-op's Human Resources Manager at all times relevant to the
Petition, establishes that the employees covered by the proposed bargaining unit cannot be
separated based on retail location.
In Trane, 339 N.L.R.B. 866(2003), the National Labor Relations Board (the "Board" or
"NLRB")stated that the well-known factors necessary to examine whether the presumption that
a petitioned-for single-facility unit has been rebutted by the employer. Id. at 867. Those factors
include:
(1) central control over daily,operations and labor relations,
including the extent of local autonomy;(2) similarity of employee
skills, functions, and working conditions;(3)the degree of
employee interchange;(4)the distance between the locations; and
(5)bargaining history, if any exists.
Id. (citing J & L Plate, Inc., 310 NLRB 429, 429(1993); R & D TNucking, Inc., 327 NLRB 531
(1999)). The Board also clarified that it "has never held or suggested that to rebut the
L!

g the complete

presumption a party must proffer `overwhelming evidence ...illustratin

submersion ofthe interests of employees at the single store,' nor is it

necessary to show that `the

separate interests' of the employees sought have been `obliterated."' Id.

(quoting PetNie Stores

Corp., 266 NLRB 75, 76(1983))(ellipsis in original).3

oned-for single-

In Thane, the Board overturned a Regional Director's ruling that apetiti

er had presented evidence

facility unit was appropriate. The Board determined that the employ
clearly showing that the employees at its two facilities had identical skills,

performed identical

The Board also

at
functions and had identical working conditions. Thane, 339 N.L.R.B. 867.
supervision and that

found that the employees at the two facilities were subject to the same direct

s. Id, at 867-68.

a central management team controlled the daily operations and labor relation

Further, all ofthe employer's administrative functions, including payroll and

human resources,

were centralized. Id. at 868.

The Board went on to criticize the Regional Director's reliance on the fact that the
facilities at issue were approximately 108 miles apart, as well as the Regional Directo

two

r's reliance

With
on the employer's "failure to present specific evidence of employee interchange." Id.
cance of this

regard to the geographic proximity of each facility, the Board stated that the signifi

factor was reduced by other factors, including that the two areas were "only loosely

defined by
e

fluid lines of demarcation" and that the employer presented general (and unchallenged) evidenc

l
ofregular interchange between the two sites. Id. Finally, the Board also faulted "[t]he Regiona

the Board stated that the

In Specialty Healthcare 8c Rehabilitation Center ofMobile, 357 N.L.R.B No. 83 (201.1),
ty of interest"
communi
lming
overwhe
"an
show
must
party challenging a presumptively valid petitioned-for unit
Id. at slip op.
party.
ing
challeng
the
by
proposed
unit
larger
the
and
between the employees in the petitioned-for unit
ment.
retail
establish
in
a
ng
unit
bargaini
a
proposed
with
deal
not
12-13. Specialty Healthcare, however, did
issue here.
at
ns
not
regulatio
and
rules
Board
specific
to
subject
facility
care
Rather, that case addressed anon-acute

ocation basis to find the

Director's reliance on the lack of historical bargaining on a multil

petitioned-for unit appropriate[,]" which the Board believed was "at

most a neutral factor in the

analysis." Id. at 868 n.4.

the petitioner sought
In Budget RentA CaN Systems, Inc., 337 N.L.R.B. 884(2002),
represent employees at two different locations but as two separate
reversed the Regional Director's finding that the petitioned-for

to

bargaining units. The Board

units were appropriate because

the employer's multiple stores "ha[d) been effectively merged into

a larger unit." Id. at 884.

gh the multiple stores

The employer in Budget Rent A Car presented evidence that, althou
had local management, all of those managers reported to a single

district manager. Id. All

made by
personnel matters regarding each ofthe locations were centralized and

the district

while the local

manager in consultation with the human resources department. Id. And
managers prepared employee evaluations, set schedules, approved time
the day-to-day operations oftheir respective stores,"such as enforcing

off requests and handled

work rules or dealing

with customer service issues[,]" all of the policies and practices related to those

issues were

at 884-85. The
uniform throughout all locations and determined by central management. Id.
m, uniforms

"job functions, required skills, starting wages, benefits, the incentive bonus progra
and all other terms and conditions of employment[were] identical from store to

store." Id. at

,..
The employer also presented examples of employee interchange among the various
locations, id., which at their furthest points were 40 minutes apart by car, id. at 884 n.l. Based
er and

on the evidence presented, and despite the lack of bargaining history between the employ

the petitioner and the -large geographic area covered by the various stores, the Board ruled
the employer rebutted the single-facility presumption. Id. at 885-86.
D

that

Like the employers in Thane and Budget Rent A Car, the Co-op has, as further described
below, more than met its burden to rebut the presumptive appropriateness of the Union's
,
petitioned-for unit. As a result, the Board should dismiss the Petition or, in the alternative rule
that the proposed unit is appropriate only if it applies to employees at both the East and West
retail locations.
All Retail Employees Are Subject To Central Control Over Daily
Operations And Labor Relations.
The Co-op does not distinguish its employees between the two retail locations,just like
the employers in Ti^ane and Budget Rent A Cap. Although each retail location has its own
manager, those two managers report to the Co-op's Director of Operations. Hr'g Tr. 10:9-17.
Likewise, the terms and conditions of employment applicable to all Co-op employees are
determined by the Co-op's general management team and its Human Resources Department.
See, e.g., Hr'g Tr. 10:18-22; 11:21-12:4; 32:8-33:8; 101:17-107:2; 185:21-186:3 (Andrew
Sernatinger admitting that job description for Juice Bar Clerk was the same for both retail
locations).
The Co-op only has one set of employment policies, which are set out in the Personnel
Manual, Employer Ex. 1, and which apply to all employees regardless of location. Hr'g Tr.
11:19-24. When changes are made to any employment policy, whether initiated by the
employees through the Employee Council4 or by management, those changes apply Co-op-wide.
See, e.g.,Hr'g Tr. 14:6-11.

The Employee Council, which reflects the Co-op's emphasis on participatory management by employees and is
part of the Co-op's bylaws, is a representative body that includes employees in departments that cross both retail
locations. Hr'g Tr. 11:24-12:9; see also Employer Ex. 3 at 7.

Tr. 32:16The Co-op also only maintains one set of benefits for all employees. Hr'g
l benefits regardless of

33:8; 106:2-107:2; 184:24-185:8(Andrew Sernatinger discussing identica

and Human
location). All benefit decisions are made by the Co-op's management team
Resources. Hr'g Tr. 106:2-1 Q7:2.
cation,

All qualifications and procedures for hiring,job duties for each job classifi
disciplinary and termination guidelines and decisions, and wage ranges are

set and handled

Tr. 89:5-90:8;
through the Human Resources Manager and the General Manager. See Hr'g
increases
h
101:17-105:11; 110:10-21; 139:4-141:18; 143:12-144:4. For example, althoug merit
s are based on

are determined by individual managers at each retail location, all such increase

merit criteria established by Human Resources that have to be applied consistently

by everybody.

input regarding
Hr'g Tr. 152:1-17. While managers at each ofthe retail locations may provide
105:11;
these issues, the decisions are ultimately up to the General Manager. Hr'g Tr, 104:13143; 12-144:4 (discussing "systematized" hiring practices and uniform training of

managers

regarding personnel practices).

In addition, the budget and other operational needs of each retail location are ultimately
d

determined by the General Manager, in consultation with other managers and staff, and approve
by the Co-op's board of directors. Hr'g Tr. 90:9-23.
The Union did not present any evidence to challenge the fact that all employment

decisions,from hiring to firing and everything in between, and all qualifications for employment,
performance standards, work rules and policies are set by the Co-op's central management, not
by the individual store managers. The Union also failed to present any evidence to challenge the
fact that all operational decisions, including budgets, are set by the Co-op's central management.

2.

The Skills Required Of All Retail Employees And Their Respective

Functions And Working Conditions Are Identical.

Just as all of the Co-op's retail employees are subject to the same employment policies,
benefits and employment qualifications, the skills required for each position covered by
proposed unit, the functions required of employees and the working conditions at both

the

retail

locations are identical. Despite a few minor differences between the East and West retail
locations, Hr'g Tr. 94:16-97:6, both facilities are identical in all material respects and

offer the

to the
same products and services at each location. In fact, the two retail locations are similar
point that they use a single cash register system, Hr'g Tr. 137:1-13, share equipment, Hr'g
94:2-15, inventory, Hr'g Tr. 86:10-25 (discussing coordination between Buyers at the

Tr.

East and

West stores), and even customers, Hr'g Tr. 85:20-24.

As indicated above; all job duties are set by the Human Resources Department and
reflected in common job descriptions applicable Co-op-wide, so a Deli Clerk at the Fast retail
location performs the same tasks as a Deli Clerk at the West retail location. Because job duties
for any given position do not generally change from one location to the other, the Co-op's
Human Resources Department has created standardized evaluation forms. Hr'g Tr. 92:17-94:1.
The Co-op's employees themselves, through the Employee Council, ensure that the
working conditions at each retail facility (and generally for all Co-op employees)remain the
same regardless of location. Hr'g Tr. 105:12-106:1; 107:3-108:4.
Training at both locations is also standardized based on job classification, so employees
at the East location can generally perform the exact same job at the West location without
additional training. Hr'g Tr. 161:8-162:16. Although sometimes a Store Manager may require
an employee who generally works at the other store to undergo some training, the overall skill

set does not change between locations for any given job description, Hr'g Tr.

153:8-15, and any

2; 173:21additional training is typically much shorter than the original. See Hr'g Tr. 161:8-2
174:11.
All official Co-op communications, such as job openings and policy changes,

are also

Tr. 121:6centralized for all employees, regardless of location, through the Eggie Buzz. Hr'g
are required to
122:7; 123:1-14. The Eggie Buzz is the Co-op's Intranet system that employees
1; 121:6-14.
review daily through computers provided by the Co-op. Hr'g Tr. 115:19-24; 119:5-2
The Co-op's profit-sharing benefit underscores the integration of the retail locations

and

retail
epitomizes the community of interest shared between employees at the East and West
ss of
locations. Under this benefit, all Co-op employees share in the Co-op's profits, regardle
09:25.
whether the facility at which they typically work actually turned a profit. Hr'g Tr. 108:5-1
The profitability ofthe Co-op is measured Co-op-wide, and employees directly benefit

from

those profits regardless of where they may work. Hr'g Tr. 87:1-19; 109:10-25.
3.

Interchange Of Employees Between The Two Retail Locations Is

Common.

The Co-op has authority, as described in the personnel manual, to require employees to
work at any of the Co-op's facilities. Hr'g Tr, 56:19-23; Employer's Ex. 1 at 24(addressing
"Management-Initiated Transfers"). Even the witnesses presented by the Union at the hearing
have all worked at both locations. Hr'g Tr. 110:22-11 l:l 1. Maintenance employees are also
sometimes required to work between the two retail locations. Hr'g Tr. 116:14-117:1. The
degree of employee interchange between the two locations is frequetlt enough that the list of
employees working at either location changes from one day to the next. Hr'g Tr. 159:24-160:12.

10

This interchange of employees is most importatlt with regard to benefit qualifications.

All of the Co-op's retail employees may combine their hours of work from either retail

location

East and the

to qualify for benefits. As Andrew Sernatinger admitted, he has worked at both the
if the
West retail locations. Hr'g Tr. 177:25-178:15; 150:21-151:11. He also admitted that,
Co-op did not allow him to combine his woric hours from both retail locations, he would

not be

of employees
eligible for benefits as a full-time employee. Hr'g Tr. 184:10-23. This interchange
ity of

is key to these benefit determinations and further highlights the overwhelming commun

regarding
interest shared by Co-op employees regardless of location. See also the discussion
profit sharing, above.
Martha Claassen, who also testified for the Union, has also worked at both the East and
the West retail locations. Hr'g Tr. 155:10-21; 170:20-171:1.
Ms. Dahl also provided numerous examples of situations in which employees who
typically work at the West retail location also worked at the East retail location. Hr'g Tr.
110:22-114:14. Ms. Dahl also stated that at least 45 employees work in more than one
department. Hr'g Tr. 167:6-14.
According to Ms. Dahl, employees can work at both retail locations simply to pick up
additional work. Hr'g Tr. 111:25-112:9. An employee may also switch which department he or
she works in by looking for work at either ofthe two retail locations. Hr'g Tr. 112:4-9.
Employees may also substitute for co-workers at either location. Hr'g Tr. 112:10-11.
Under this scenario, employees can simply place their names on a list for certain jobs or apply to
be "official substitute worlcer[s]" and pick up work when a department, regardless of location, is
short-staffed or needs additional help for particular projects. Hr'g Tr. 112:12-18.

11

ving

During special projects or during particularly busy periods, such as the Thanksgi

l hours.

holiday, the Co-op may request that any employee who is available pick up additiona

whichever retail
Hr'g Tr. 112:19-25. In this type of scenario, employees provide assistance to
project that
location needs the additional help. Hr'g Tr. 112:25-113:3. An example of a special
typically leads to interchange of employees between the East and the West retail locations

is the

employees
remodel ofthe East location. Hr'g Tr. 113:4-10. During the East remodeling project,
were able to pick up work at the Co-op's offsite kitchen and at the West retail location.

Hr'g Tr.

nt was
113:11-12. One particular employee who typically works in the East grocery departme
opening
moved to the West grocery department during this time, Hr'g Tr. 113:13-14. The grand
of the West retail location is yet another example of a project that led to interchange of
employees between both retail locations. Hr'g Tr. 113:22-114:4.
In addition, the retail employees may be required to work at either location if they have a
light duty assignment related to physical restrictions. Hr'g Tr. 113:15-18. Under these
circumstances, the Co-op will place such an employee "anywhere that [it] can put them to help
them keep their hours that are within those restrictions." Hr'g Tr. 113:16-22. These light duty
situations can lead to employees working across both retail locations. Hr'g Tr. 113:21-22.
Employees may also work across both the Fast and West retail locations if either location
has an unexpected shortage of employees. For example, during days when one location has
numerous employees absent from work, such as cashiers, a call is made to the other location to
request help from those cashiers. Hr'g Tr. 114:4-10. Sometimes, the request for help is made
through the Eggie Buzz. Hr'g Tr. 115:19-24.
See also the discussion above regarding Auditors/Receivers and the fact that they are not
assigned to a particular location and regularly work at both the East and ~Uest retail locations.
12

4.

The Co-op's Retail Locations Are A Mere Eight Miles Apart.

As indicated on Employer's Exhibit 4, the Co-op's two retail locations are approximately
miles
eight miles apart. Given that the Board in Thane held that two facilities that were over 100
apart constituted the appropriate unit based on evidence less compelling than what the Co-op

has

presented in this case, this factor weighs heavily in favor of a ruling that the appropriate unit

is a

unit containing the retail employees (as stated in the proposed unit) at both of the Co-op's retail
locations.
The Parties Previously Agreed That The Only Appropriate Unit For Retail
Employees Was A Unit Containing Employees From Both Retail
Locations.
As Ms. Firszt indicated, the parties previously agreed that the appropriate unit for
collective bargaining was a unit covering both retail locations. Hr'g Tr. 33:15-21. Despite the
Union's objection that the written agreement between the parties regarding the appropriate unit
does not constitute bargaining history (which it is, as bargaining unit issues are regularly
negotiated as part of the collective bargaining process), this evidence goes to the heart of the
issue before the Regional Director. See, e.g., MatNos Automated ElectNical Construction Corp.,
353 N.L.R.B. 569, 570-71 (discussing the relevance of past bargaining history regarding
bargaining unit issues to the appropriate unit analysis).
As the Board stated in Thane, the absence of bargaining history would, at best, be a
neutral factor in the analysis. See -also RentA CaN, 337 N.L.R.B. at 885. Here, this bargaining
history between the Co-op and the Union, reflected in a negotiated agreement for an election in
a

one unit covering both retail locations, favors dismissal ofthe Union's Petition or ruling that
the appropriate unit consists of both retail locations.

13

IV.

COl~iCLUSION

The Union's desire as to a unit is relevant but not dispositive of the matter. While a
single retail location unit may be presumptively appropriate under some circumstances, this

is

wn
not true in all cases and certainly not supported by the evidence in this case. It is well-kno
that the appropriateness of a unit is not decided "by any rigid yardstick, but in light of

all the

N.L.R.B. 551,
relevant circumstances of the particular case." Frisch's Big Boy Ill-Mai, Inc., 147
551-52(1964). When looking at all of the relevant circumstances of this case, the Co-op has
presented more than enough evidence to rebut the presumption that might otherwise attach to the
Union's Petition.
The Union's proposed unit places an artificial division in the Co-op's business and
operational structure and ignores the realitysupported by the evidence presented at the
hearingthat there is but one Willy Street Grocery Co-op, not two, under common management,
central control and ownership. The community of interest among the Co-op's employees, its two
geographically proximate locations and the commonality reflected in common working
conditions, identical fringe benefits, interchange of employees, and the intertwined benefits and
profit sharing plan cannot be ignored. Even the parties themselves recognized this when they
agreed upon that the appropriate unit for an informal election. The day-to-day interests of the
employees at the West retail location are inextricably intertwined with their co-workers' interest
at the East location. The Petition should therefore be dismissed or modified to reflect the
realities supported by the record evidence.
Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing and on the factors discussed herein, the Coop requests that the Regional Director dismiss the Petition because the Union's proposed
bargaining unit is not an appropriate unit. Alternatively, the Co-op requests a ruling in its favor
14

that the appropriate unit is a unit containing the employees at issue for

both the East and the

West retail locationsemployees whose day-to-day interests have merged

such that their

identity cannot be distinguished.

Dated this 9`~' day of January, 2015.
GODFREY &KAHN,S.C.
~... // a

//

~'"

A. Anrs
8)258-29
ufino Gaytan III
(414)287-9572
One East Main Street
Madison, WI 53703
Email: jeanders@glclaw.com
Email: rgaytan@gklaw.com
J

128233132

15

CE~tTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 9, 2015, I electronically filed with the

National Labor

ry Cooperative. I further

Relations Board the foregoing Post-Hearing Brief of Willy Street Groce

ing:

sent by U.S. Mail and electronic mail a copy to each of the follow

John M. Loomis
Sweet and Associates, LLC
2510 East Capitol Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53211
E-Mail: jloomis@unionyeslaw.com

Mark A. Sweet
Sweet and Associates, LLC
2510 East Capitol Drive
Milwaukee, WI 53211
E-mail: msweet@unionyeslaw.com

C ristine A. Rios

16