Meijer Supermarkets, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 513 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

MEIJER SUPERMARKETS, INC. 513
Meijer Supermarkets , Inc. and Retail Store Employees Union,
Local 20, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner
Meijer Supermarkets , Inc.' and Retail Store Employees Union,
Local 20, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Cases Nos. 7-RC-5333 and 7-RC-5368. May 9, 1963
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon consolidated petitions 2 duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Iris H.
Meyer, hearing officer. 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the entire record in these cases the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations 3 claim to represent certain employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
I Employer's name appears as corrected herein.
2 Pursuant to order of the Regional Director of the Seventh Region, Cases Nos. 7-RC-
5333 and 7-RC-5368 were consolidated on August 29, 1962.
3 The Consolidated Independent Union, Local 951, affiliated with the National Inde-
pendent Union Council, herein called the ICIU, intervened on the basis of its contract inter-
est. Petitioner contends that the CIU is not a labor organization in view of (1) Its failure
to comply with the reporting requirements of the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959, and (2) its use of varying names tending to confuse its identity.
However, the Board has held that a union's status as a labor organization is not affected
by noncompliance with the Labor^Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959,
Alto Pla8tics Manufacturing Corporation, 136 NLRB 850; nor by misrepresenting its
identity, William J. Burns, 138 NLRB 449. Moreover, as the evidence shows that the
CIU admits employees to membership and exists for the purpose of dealing with an em-
ployer concerning wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment, and since this
fully satisfies the statutory test, we find that the CIU is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act
The amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 539,
AFL-CIO, intervened at the hearing on a showing of interest, but withdrew as a matter
of record on November 1, 1962.
The Retail and Department Store Employees, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, herein called the ACw, intervened on a showing of interest Although the Em-
ployer, Petitioner, and CIU contend that the ACW is not a labor organization, the Board
has found it to be a labor organization in one or more cases. See Spartan Department
Stores, 140 NLRB 608. Taking official notice of our proceedings, we find the ACW to be
a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The ACW did not enter any stipula-
tions, indicate its positions, or otherwise participate in the hearing.
142 NLRB No. 69.
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Employer presently operates a chain of 17 retail stores,
engaged in the sale of food and nonfood items, as well as warehouse
facilities which service all stores.
In May 1962, when the original petition in 7-RC-5333 was filed, the
Employer had 16 retail outlets, all known as Meijer Supermarkets.
At that time, Petitioner sought a single unit of the 16 supermarkets,
a unit then coextensive with the Employer's entire chain operation.
In June 1962 the Meijer's Supermarket on Kalamazoo Street in
Grand Rapids, Michigan, was expanded and reopened under the name
of Thrifty Acres. This store, originally consisting of 25,000 square
feet, was expanded to 100,000 square feet, with two-thirds of its mer-
chandising area allocated to the sale of nonfood items, and with its
work force increased from some 50 to about 175 employees. On June 4,
Petitioner filed its petition in 7-RC-5368 seeking a separate unit of
the employees at this store. Thereafter, the Employer added two more
Thrifty stores, one at Holland, Michigan, which like the Grand Rapids
Thrifty was formerly a Meijer Supermarket; and the other an entirely
new establishment at Muskegon, Michigan.
On amended petitions,' Petitioner now seeks a unit of 14 Meijer
Supermarkets and the warehouse, and a second unit of the employees
at the Grand Rapids Thrifty; the Thrifty stores at Holland and
Muskegon are excluded from the units requested by Petitioner. The
Petitioner, relying upon differences between the Thrifty and Meijer
operations, asserts that the former represents an entirely new venture,
requiring a separate election at the Grand Rapids Thrifty. However,
in the alternative, Petitioner has expressed a willingness to participate
in an election in any unit or units found appropriate by the Board.
The Employer and the CIU, relying on bargaining history and other
factors, contend that an overall unit of the 17 retail outlets and the
warehouse, including employees at the Thrifty stores, is the only
appropriate unit.
Since 1951, the Employer has recognized the CIU as the exclusive
bargaining agent of its employees in a multistore, chainwide unit.
At that time, the Employer's operations were limited to five retail
stores. As the Employer opened additional stores, the new employees
were considered automatically covered by existing bargaining agree-
4 As a result of a corporate reorganization , through which Thrifty Acres , Inc., the
Employer named in Case No . 7-RC-5368, was merged into the parent corporation , Meijer
Supermarkets , Inc. ; and subsequent operational changes consisting of the conversion of
the Holland supermarket into a Thrifty Acres store and the addition of a new Thrifty at
Muskegon ; the Petitioner moved at the hearing to amend its petitions so as to exclude the
Grand Rapids, Holland, and Muskegon Thrifties from the unit sought in Case No 7-RC-
5333, and to confine the petition in Case No 7-RC-5368 to the Grand Rapids Thrifty store
The Employer and CIU opposed the motions and in turn moved to dismiss the petitions.
The Regional Director referred them to the Board for decision. In view of the fact that
the events which are the basis for the motions to amend occurred subsequent to the filing
of the original petitions herein, and in further view of the fact that the issues have been
fully litigated , we find that the motions to amend are proper . Accordingly , we grant such
motions to amend and deny the Employer 's and CIII's motion to dismiss the petitions herein
MEIJER SUPERMARKETS, INC. 515
ments with the CIU. When the instant petitions were filed, the sub-
sisting agreement between the Employer and CIU was not scheduled
to expire until August 5, 1963 .1 That contract, through its recognition
clause, applies to all employees of the Employer and its subsidiaries,
subject to certain exclusions not here material.
The Meijer and Thrifty stores are operated under different names
and trade symbols and have separate locations but within the same
general geographic areas. The Thrifty stores use twice the display
area for the sale of nonfood items than is used for food, while at the
supermarkets, the food area doubles that allocated to the display of
nonfood items. While nonfood items are available at all stores, the
nonfood lines at the Thrifty stores are more extensive and diverse.
The Thrifty stores use different types of bags, payroll checks, applica-
tion forms, and employee identification badges. Manpower require-
ments at the Thrifty stores now exceed those at the Meijer locations.
The Employer and the CIU, before the opening of the Grand Rapids
Thrifty, negotiated a new wage schedule for certain employees in the
nonfood area at the Thrifty stores which, in some classifications, re-
flected a lower starting rate than is received by nonfood workers at
the supermarkets. However, it appears that the wage differentials
reflected the lighter work and more limited responsibilities required
of employees in the new Thrifty classifications.
Despite these differences, the evidence establishes that operations at
all of the Employer's stores are controlled through a central office
which plans, coordinates, and directs management policies relative
to merchandising practices, pricing, personnel administration, pur-
chasing, and inventory control. The central office also has sole author-
ity to determine the basic layout of the store, the type and variety of the
merchandise carried, overall staffing, hours of operation, and major
promotional and advertising activities. All stores are serviced by
central warehouse and bookkeeping facilities. Intermediate supervi-
sion is effected through an operations director and district manager,
whose responsibilities are defined by division of the stores into two
supervisory districts, each containing both Meijer and Thrifty stores.
The operations director and district manager work out of the central
office and attempt to visit each store in their respective districts at
least once every 2 weeks. The store managers have immediate re-
sponsibility for the execution of directives handed down by the central
office.
Moreover, there are other important features common to both
Thrifty and Meijer stores. The record shows that: There is no dif-
ference in the authority of the store managers at Thrifty and Meijer
5 The Employer and CIU, at the hearing, waived their initial assertion that the presently
subsisting contract was a bar to the instant proceeding.
712-548-64-vol. 142-34
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
locations ; gross revenues from the sale of food items exceed those
from nonfood lines at each of the Employer 's stores; merchandise
available at all stores is jointly advertised ; that all stores are of the
self-service , discount variety ; the Employer 's private labels are carried
in all stores ; and both merchandise and personnel are interchanged
between Meijer and Thrifty stores.
With the exception of the nonfood classifications covered by the
supplement agreement , all employees derive their hourly rates from
the basic bargaining agreement . In addition , all employees are cov-
ered by a common grievance system, and enjoy all other contractual
nonwage benefits . The basic agreement also provides for the exercise
of departmental seniority on a companywide basis without differentiat-
ing between Thrifty and Meijer stores . Despite the different work re-
sponsibilities of certain nonfood employees at the Thrifty stores, the
overall skill and experience required of employees at these stores is
substantially similar to that possessed by their counterparts at the
Meijer Supermarkets.
On the basis of the foregoing , we are of the opinion that the Em-
ployer's Thrifty Acres operations represent no more than a normal
business expansion of existing facilities sand not the establishment of
an entirely new operation. Accordingly , and in view of the bargain-
ing history , community of employment interests throughout the chain,
high level of centralized management and control , minimal store
autonomy, geographic integration , employee interchange , and the
absence of any indication that the organizational interests of em-
ployees would be impaired if a chainwide unit were found appropriate;
we find a unit consisting of employees at all 17 stores and the ware-
house to beappropriate herein.6
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 ( b) of the Act.
All full -time and regular part-time employees employed at the Em-
ployer 's 17 retail establishments and warehouse located in Grand
Rapids, Michigan , and environs, incuding all full -time and regular
part-time employees at the Employer 's Thrifty Acres stores , but ex-
cluding employees working in the bank , shoe repair , barber shop,
beauty shop , major appliances, credit, and bakery departments,' of-
9 Cf. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 140 NLRB 1011. Contrary to the
Petitioner's contention , the facts in the instant case are distinguishable from those in
Sav-On Drugs, Inc, 138 NLRB 1032. There the Board found a single -store unit appropri-
ate in a chain operation on a record indicating no bargaining history , limited interchange,
geographic separation, management autonomy in the individual store, and no claim for
representation on a broader basis. See also Frostco Super Save Stores , Inc , 138 NLRB
125, where a self-determination election was allowed as to a single licensed department
on evidence showing separate ownership and physical separation of the licensed depart-
ment involved
7 The parties stipulated that employees of the named licensed departments are not em-
ployees of the Employer and should be excluded from the unit found appropriate.
LUMMUS COMPANY 517
fice clerical employees , store managers, assistant store managers, de-
partment managers,e and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election 9 omitted from publication.]'
8 Petitioner contends that the department managers are not supervisors and should be
included in the appropriate unit, while the Employer and the CIU take the contrary posi-
tion . The record establishes that department managers direct the work in their respective
departments , have authority effectively to recommend discharge and discipline , and repre-
sent the Employer at the first step in the contractual grievance procedures . We find that
they are supervisors and should be excluded from the appropriate unit. However, the
record suggests , though unclear on this point , that there may be departments , not identified
in the record , in which the department manager is the only employee employed or who
exercises supervisory authority only irregularly and sporadically . In accordance with
established policy the Board will not exclude persons as supervisors who do not at present
exercise supervisory authority or do so only on an irregular or sporadic basis. Huntley
Industrial Minerals, Inc., 131 NLRB 1227 , 1228. Accordingly, department managers work-
ing under the aforesaid conditions are not supervisors as defined in the Act and are in-
cluded in the unit.
8 As the unit found appropriate is larger than that initially requested by Petitioner,
Petitioner's interest in the chainwide unit is unclear . Accordingly, the Regional Director
is instructed not to proceed with the election hereinafter directed until he shall have first
determined that the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest in the unit herein
found appropriate . The CIU does not wish to participate in an election if Petitioner's
showing is found inadequate.
Lummus Company and James J. Kivlin
Local 80, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada , AFL-CIO and James J. Kivlin . Cases Nos. 4-CA-
2361 and 4-CB-717. May 10, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 11, 1962, Trial Examiner James A. Shaw issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Local
80, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent Local 80, had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as
set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. He also found that
Lummus Company, herein called Respondent Lummus, did not en-
gage in the unfair labor practices alleged nand recommended that the
complaint be dismissed in its entirety as to this Respondent. There-
after, the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and Respondent
Local 80 filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs. Respondent Lummus filed a brief 1 in reply to the exceptions
and briefs of the General Counsel and the Charging Party.
1 Respondent Lummus' request for oral argument is hereby denied , as the record, excep-
tions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
142 NLRB No. 59.