Ergens Grocery Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 6 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ergens Grocery Corp., Employer-Petitioner and Unit-
ed Steelworkers of America , Local 15370, AFL-
CIO-CLC;' Retail Clerks Store Employees Union
Local 1407, as chartered by Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association , AFL_CIO ; 2 and Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, Local 590, AFL-CIO,3 Case 6-RM-508
August 23, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Michael Joyce. Fol-
lowing the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, this case
was transferred to the Board for decision. No briefs
were filed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
The Steelworkers or its predecessor has been the
collective-bargaining representative at the Employer's
Imperial, Pennsylvania, food store for a number of
years. There is currently a collective-bargaining
agreement between the Steelworkers on behalf of its
Local 15370 and the Employer which was entered into
on July 10, 1973, effective from July 1, 1973, until
June 30, 1976. The Steelworkers and Meatcutters a]-
1 Hereinafter called Local 15370. United Steelworkers of America , herein-
after called Steelworkers , intervened based on a current collective -bargaining
agreement with the Employer on behalf of Local 15370.
z Hereinafter called Retail Clerks.
Hereinafter called Meatcutters.
lege that this agreement is a bar to this proceeding.
The Employer desires an election, as does the Retail
Clerks, which contends that the contract is not a bar
because of an alleged abandonment of the contract by
Local 15370, and the assignment of the contract by
Local 15370 to the Meatcutters. We find no merit in
the Retail Clerks contentions.
In a letter dated December 20, 1973, the officers of
Local 15370 informed the members that the officers
agreed that the members' interests could best be
served by affiliating with the Meatcutters. The mem-
bers were notified that a secret-ballot vote would be
taken at the next regular monthly meeting, January 8,
1974. On January 4, 1974,4 the Retail Clerks sent a
letter to the Employer in which it claimed an interest
in representing the employees. On January 7, the Em-
ployer filed the instant petition. On January 8, at the
meeting of Local 15370, the members voted 34 to 2 to
affiliate with the Meatcutters. In addition to employ-
ees at the Imperial store, employees from the
Employer's Bridgeville and Carick stores were also
present and voted in the affiliation vote.' In a letter
dated January 9, the officers of Local 15370 informed
the Employer that the members voted to affiliate with
the Meatcutters and requested the Employer to refer
all communications to the Meatcutters. On January
11, the Meatcutters sent a letter to the Employer in-
forming it of the affiliation change.
From the above, it is clear that on January 7, the
date on which the Employer filed the instant petition,
the only relevant action taken by Local 15370 was a
recommendation by its officers that the members vote
on January 8 for affiliation with the Meatcutters. In
addition, Bernard M. Hostein, staff representative for
the Steelworkers, testified that he attended the Janu-
ary 8 meeting and told the members that the Steel-
workers were not letting anybody go, but that "we just
wanted to know more or less how the people felt, how
their ideas were on affiliating with [the Meatcutters]."
He also told the members, "we are not abandoning
them, we are servicing them." The record indicates
that the Steelworkers have continued to service the
contract. Victor Ergens testified that a representative
of the Steelworkers visited the store and said that the
Steelworkers still represents the employees.
In view of the foregoing, it is apparent that, despite
the desire of a substantial part of the membership of
Local 15370 to affiliate with the Meatcutters,6 the
Steelworkers has not relinquished its rights under the
4 All dates hereinafter are 1974.
5 There are approximately 28 employees in the Imperial store unit. Of
these , it was estimated that approximately six or seven attended the January
8 meeting . We note that the contract , which the Steelworkers and Meatcut-
ters contend bars the petition , covers only the employees at the Imperial
store.
6 We find it unnecessary to determine the appropriateness of the affiliation
vote.
213 NLRB No. 4
ERGENS GROCERY CORP.
contract as a signatory thereto . It has in all respects
indicated its willingness to administer the contract'
Furthermore, the Meatcutters has disclaimed any in-
terest in representing the employees.
We are satisfied that the status of the Steelworkers
as the effective and indentifiable representative of the
Employer's employees remains undisturbed and that
no doubt exists among these employees as to the iden-
tity of the labor organization by which they desire to
be represented . Accordingly, as the existing contract
will not expire until June 30, 1976, we find that it is
a bar to the present petition . We shall therefore dis-
miss the petition 8
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
Universal Moulded Products Corporation , 118 NLRB 1277 (1957). it hereby is, dismissed.
The Youngstown Steel Door Company, 116 NLRB 986 (1956).