C. Pappas Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 1272 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of C. PAPPAS COMPANY, INC. (GLORIA FOOD STORES,
GLORIA CHAIN STORES AND C. PAPPAS RETAIL STORES), EMPLOYER
and RETAIL, WHOLESALE, DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, NEW ENGLAND
JOINT BOARD, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No.1-RC-722.Decided December 15,1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Robert E.
Greene, a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members. *
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner in agreement with Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, Local 592, herein
called the Intervenor, seeks a unit comprising the employees of the
Employer's stores in Metropolitan Boston. The Employer contends
that the only appropriate unit consists of all its employees in all its
stores wherever located.
The Employer is a Massachusetts corporation engaged in the dis-
tribution of liquor, beer, and wine, and the sale of imported food-
stuffs at wholesale and retail. At present, the Employer maintains
21 stores in approximately 17 municipalities in and nearby the city
of Boston. Of these stores, the Petitioner and Intervenor seek a
unit which would include those located in Lynn, Revere, Beverly,
Medford, Everett, Hyde Park, East Boston, and Newton, Massachu-
*Reynolds , Murdock, and Gray.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 192.
1272
C. PAPPAS COMPANY, INC. 1273
setts, and would exclude those located in Brockton, Shrewsbury,
Lawrence, Franklin, Leominster, Grafton, Fitchburg, Milford, and
Plymouth, Massachusetts.
The stores designated above by the Petitioner as being the basis
of an appropriate unit do not fall into any distinguishable geographic
area, can hardly be said to constitute Metropolitan Boston, inas-
much as Beverly which is approximately 30 miles north of Boston
is sought to be included whereas Lawrence and Brockton, both in the
same direction although closer, would be excluded from such unit
Nor does it appear that the Employer operates on a district or area
system, but rather that all of its operations are conducted as an in-
tegrated whole.
The Employer maintains a principal office in Boston from which
it governs its operations wherever located upon the basis of an over-
all management and personnel policy. It maintains one warehouse
from which all stores are serviced. Purchases for all stores wherever
located are made by one buyer for each category of goods. Each
buyer operates out of the main office and circulates among all of the
stores. All of the stores are under the supervision of one supervisor
who works out of the main office and circulates among them. Although
each store is under the direct supervision of the store manager,
he does not have substantial independent authority to hire, promote,
or discharge employees, as this function is carried out either by the
supervisor or the buyers. Interchange of employees whenever neces-
sary is accomplished without regard to geographic considerations. It
appears further that the Employer maintains one pay-roll and vaca-
tion and hospitalization plan for all of its employees. All records
relating to social security, withholding tax, and unemployment com-
pensation deductions, are maintained in the main office.
The foregoing indicates that the Employer's operations are con-
ducted as an integrated whole with all authority emanating from
its main office. The uniformity of wages, hours of employment, vaca-
tion and hospitalization plans, its over-all personnel and management
policy, as well as the common ultimate supervision, and the interchange
of employees whenever necessary, all are factors favoring an over-all
unit 1 We conclude that the only basis for the proposed unit is the
extent of the Petitioner's organization among the employees herein
involved. However, the Act, as amended, precludes a finding on this
basis alone z
1 Matter of Westbrook Enterprises, Inc., 79 N. L. R. B. 1032 ; Matter of Geneva Forge,
Inc., 76 N. L It. B 497.
2 Section 9 ( c) (5) provides : "In determining whether a unit is appropriate for the pur-
poses specified in subsection (b) the extent to which the employees have organized shall
not be controlling."
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since it appears that the proposed unit is restricted to a portion
of an over-all operation of the Employer , we find , in view of the over-
all management and personnel policy, as well as the integrated oper-
ations of the Employer, and upon the entire record in this case, that a
unit limited to the employees sought to be represented by the Petitioner
is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.s
As we have found that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inap-
propriate , we also find that no question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act. We shall, therefore , dismiss the
petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifica-
tion of representatives of employees of C. Pappas Company, Inc.
(Gloria Food Stores, Gloria Chain Stores and C. Pappas Retail
Stores), Boston, Massachusetts, filed by Retail, Wholesale, Depart-
ment Store Union, New England Joint Board, CIO, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
Matter of Westbrook Enterprises, Inc., supra.