House of Values

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 23, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 656 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Payless Drug Store of Aberdeen, Inc. d/b/a House of
Values, Employer-Petitioner and Retail Clerks Un-
ion Local No. 629, Retail Clerks International Asso-
ciation, AFL-CIO. Case 19-RM-823
February 23, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , 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 John M. Cronin on
October 15, 1970. Thereafter, on October 21, 1970, the
Regional Director for Region 19 transferred this case
to the National Labor Relations Board for decision.
Briefs have been timely filed by the Employer and the
Union.
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 powers
in connection with this case 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. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. Retail Clerks Union Local No. 629, Retail Clerks
International Association, AFL-CIO, and Teamsters
Union Local No. 699, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of 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 Employer's store involved in this case opened
on or about September 28, 1969. At the same time,
pickets from Retail Clerks Union Local No. 629 be-
gan picketing the store with informational picket
signs ; i.e., "This Store does not have a Union Agree-
ment-Please Do Not Patronize." The Clerks informed
the Employer and other unions in the area of their
intent to engage in informational picketing. At vari-
ous time the Clerks pickets were joined by members
of other unions carrying signs in support of the Clerks.
This picketing continued without incident or stop-
pages until March 10, 1970. On March 10 members of
Teamsters Union Local No. 699 set up picket lines at
the entrances to the shopping center, and began stop-
ping deliveries. The Clerks continued to picket peace-
fully at the entrances to the Employer's store.
On that same day, the Employer filed a charge 1
alleging a violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the Act
and the instant petition. Thereafter, the Regional Di-
rector for Region 19 conducted an investigation and
determined that an election was appropriate. Follow-
ing the Employer's withdrawal of its charge on March
23, 1970, the Regional Director issued his direction of
election on March 25, 1970. Thereafter, the Union
ceased picketing and informed the Regional Director
that it disclaimed any interest in representing the em-
ployees covered by the petition. On this basis the Re-
gional Director informed the parties, by telegram
dated March 27, 1970, that the election was post-
poned indefinitely, contingent on no further action
being taken inconsistent with the disclaimer.
On April 9, 1970, the Employer filed a request for
special permission to appeal Regional Director's in-
definite postponement of election, which was denied
by the Board on April 14, 1970. On June 9, 1970, the
Board, having sua sponte reconsidered its denial, re-
scinded it and granted the Employer's request for spe-
cial permission to appeal. Briefs were filed by the
Employer and by the Union, and on August 6, 1970,
the Board issued an Order Directing Hearing to re-
solve the issues raised by the Employer's appeal of the
indefinite postponement of election.
On August 19, 1970, the Employer filed a motion
to revoke Order Directing Hearing and for Other Re-
lief, which was denied on August 21, 1970. The hear-
ing was held on October 15, 1970. On October 21,
1970, the Regional Director transferred the case to the
Board, following which the parties submitted briefs to
the Board in support of their positions.
The Employer contends that the Clerks' object in
picketing was to force the Employer to recognize that
Union and to sign a contract covering the Employer's
employees; that the Clerks' "informational" picket-
ing" was a charade; and that when this charade
proved ineffective the Clerks openly accepted the in-
creased economic pressure of delivery and service in-
terruption by the Teamsters, with the hope that this
pressure might accelerate the securing of a labor con-
tract.
The Employer's contentions fail to consider the
proviso to Section 8(b)(7)(C) which allows informa-
tional picketing, unless an effect is to induce a stop-
page in pickup, delivery, or transport of any goods, or
in performance of any services. The Clerks picketed
the Employer's entrances from September 28, 1969, to
March 26, 1970, and there is no evidence that this
picketing resulted in any stoppages. However, on
March 10, 1970, the Teamsters began picketing which
did result in stoppages. The record fails to establish
any connection between the picketing of the Clerks
and that of the Teamsters. The Employer's apparent
1 Case 19-CP-138
188 NLRB No. 103
HOUSE OF VALUES 657
contention that the Clerks was under some duty to
persuade the Teamsters to cease their stoppages of
deliveries is without merit?
Since no connection was shown between the infor-
mational picketing of the Clerks, and the separate
picketing of the Teamsters, we find that the Clerks'
picketing did not have the "effect" proscribed by Sec-
tion 8(b)(7)(C), and it was therefore legitimate proviso
picketing?
In view of the above finding, there were no grounds
for direction of an expedited election under Section
8(b)(7)(C). Since no demand was made of the Em-
ployer for recognition of the Clerks.as representative
of the employees involved, and since the Clerks,
which was engaged in informational picketing, dis-
claimed any interest in the employees involved, no
question concerning representation exists, and we
shall dismiss the petition.
2 The Clerks had taken the precautionary measure of notifying the Team-
sters that the picketing 's purpose was informational and not intended to
interfere with pickups and deliveries
3 Retail Clerks Union Local 324 and Retail Clerks Union Local 770 (Barker
Bros.), 138 NLRB 478.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.