Retail Clerks Local 1689

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 548 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Retail Clerks Local 1689, affiliated with United
Food and Commerical Workers International,
AFL-CIO' and Market Basket Stores, Inc.,
Safeway Stores, Inc., Carr's Quality Centers,
d/b/a Foodland, and Northland Hub, Inc.,
d/b/a Southgate Hub2 and International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local No. 959,
Alaska.3 Cases 19-CD-378-1, 19-CD-378-2,
19-CD-378-3, and 19-CD-378-4
June 12, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing charges filed on January 2, 1981, by Market
Basket Stores, Inc., Safeway Stores, Inc., Carr's
Quality Centers, d/b/a Foodland, and Northland
Hub, Inc., d/b/a Southgate Hub, herein called the
Employers, alleging that Retail Clerks Local 1689,
affiliated with United Food and Commercial Work-
ers International, AFL-CIO, herein called UFCW,
violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, by engaging in certain
proscribed activity with an object of forcing or re-
quiring the Employers to assign certain work to
employees represented by UFCW rather than to
employees represented by International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen,
and Helpers of America, Local 959, Alaska, herein
called Teamsters.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Patrick F. Dunham on January 28,
1981. All parties, including the Employers, UFCW,
and the Teamsters, appeared at the hearing and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce
evidence bearing on the issues. Thereafter, the
Teamsters, UFCW, and the Employers filed
briefs.4
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Hearing Officer at the hearing and finds they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, in-
cluding the aforementioned briefs, the Board makes
the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Em-
ployers are Alaska corporations with offices and
I UFCW's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Employers' names appear as amended at the hearing.
3 Local 959's name appears as amended at the hearing.
The Teamsters filed a motion to supplement the record and the Em-
ployers filed a response to that motion. In light of our decision herein,
we find it unnecessary to pass on the motion to supplement the record.
256 NLRB No. 97
places of business in Fairbanks, Alaska, where they
are engaged in the retail sale of food and grocery
products. During the last calendar year, each of the
Employers had a gross sales volume in excess of
$500,000 and purchased goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the
State of Alaska. We find that each Employer is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it will effectuate
the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Teamsters and UFCW are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts
Since 1957, each of the Employers has main-
tained a collective-bargaining agreement with
UFCW. Article I states that the Fairbanks Retail
Grocers recognizes "Retail Clerks Local 1689 as
the sole and exclusive collective-bargaining agency
for a unit consisting of all employees employed in
the employers' present and future grocery stores."
The current agreement runs from July 1, 1980,
until August 1, 1983.
Since at least 1961, the Employers have had a
"City Delivery and Local Cartage Agreement"
with the Teamsters. This contract existed side by
side with the Retail Clerks Agreement until June
30, 1980, when the last one expired. The agreement
with the Teamsters required the employers to rec-
ognize the Teamsters "as the collective-bargaining
agency for such of his employees as may be em-
ployed as Teamsters, Drivers, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen or as employees under any classifications
within the jurisdiction of the Union." The contract
goes on to refer to the following job classifications
as within the Teamsters jurisdiction:
Dispatcher/Head Warehousemen, Working Fore-
man, Boom Truck (Driver), Drivers, Swampers
and Warehousemen, Utility Maintenance, and Ma-
chine Operators.
When the Teamsters first represented employees
of the Employers, retail grocers were warehousing
a considerable amount of their inventory. At that
time, due to infrequent shipment of goods, each
store maintained its own "back room" which was
large enough to hold a month's supply of merchan-
dise. These stores filed orders for families and vil-
lages in remote areas. With the advent of better
shipping methods, including containers and refrig-
erated vans, the industry changed drastically. Now
RETAIL CLERKS LOCAL 1689 549
there is warehousing separate from the stores, and
more stores are located in remote areas. The large
"back rooms" disappeared as did the old teamster
job classifications.
A practice developed in the stores whereby each
Employer would designate a particular employee
as the "store Teamster." The employee's duties do
not change upon becoming the store teamster, and
such duties are the same as those performed by em-
ployees represented by UFCW. In each store, the
store teamster works in different job classifications
including the following: assistant manager, dairy-
man, nonfood supervisor, meatcutter, inventory
control clerk, and checker. The teamster is com-
pensated at $3 to $5 more per hour than the other
employees, and is included in the Teamsters pen-
sion and health and welfare benefit plans which
call for employer payments of $4 more than the
UFCW contract.
In November 1980, the UFCW advised the Em-
ployers that it would strike if the disputed work
were assigned to the employees represented by the
Teamsters.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute concerns the work of one
employee, currently designated as the "store Team-
ster," in each of the Employers' stores.
C. The Contentions of the Parties
The Employers contend that there is reasonable
cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been
violated. The Employers all claim that they prefer
that the disputed work be assigned to employees
represented by the UFCW and that the Board
should so find. They argue that the collective-bar-
gaining agreements with the Teamsters have ex-
pired and they indicate that they do not wish to
enter into new agreements. They contend that the
skills involved are clearly "clerk" skills and that
the industry practice is that employees performing
such skills are represented by the UFCW. The Em-
ployers further contend that it is more efficient and
economical if the employees performing the work
in question are represented by the UFCW.
The UFCW contends that the work done by
each store teamster is the same as that done by the
employees it represents and that the work should
be assigned to those employees.
The Teamsters contends that the work should be
assigned to the employees it represents because it
has been theirs historically and because it is re-
quired by their collective-bargaining agreements
with the Employers. It further contends that there
is an agreed-upon method for the voluntary settle-
ment of the instant dispute.
D. Applicability of the Act
Before the Board may proceed to a determina-
tion of dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act, it
must be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been
violated. On the record before us, we are not satis-
fied that any such violation has occurred in this
case.
The Supreme Court in Carey v. Westinghouse
Electric Corp.5 emphasized the difficulty of distin-
guishing between work assignment disputes and
controversies over which of two or more unions
should represent certain employees. The Court
stated therein:
We have here a so-called "jurisdictional"
dispute involving two unions and the employ-
er. But the term "jurisdictional" is not a word
of a single meaning. In the setting of the pres-
ent case this "jurisdictional" dispute could be
one of two different, though related, species:
either--() a controversy as to whether certain
work should be performed by workers in one
bargaining unit or those in another; or (2) a
controversy as to which union should repre-
sent the employees doing particular work.s
We believe the circumstances herein fit into the
second of the aforementioned categories. As
shown, the work performed by each store teamster
is different in each store and is the same as that
performed by employees represented by UFCW.
Thus, there is no dispute over specific work or job
tasks, but merely a dispute over which of two
unions should represent certain employees. Since
Section 10(k) remedies only the situation described
in the first of the aforementioned categories, it is
not applicable herein.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we are satisfied,
and conclude, that the dispute herein is not over
the assignment of work to one group of employees
rather than another within the meaning of Section
10(k). Accordingly, we shall quash the notice of
hearing.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in this case be and it hereby is, quashed.
' 375 U.S. 261 (1964).
e 375 U S. at 263-264.
RETAIL CLERKS LOCAL 1689