Sigman Food Stores #27

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 15, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 689 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

SIGMAN FOOD STORES NO. 27 689
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Tour-
napull, Georgia, plant including the chief tool grinder, stock chaser
(fabrication, small parts department), production dispatcher (Tour-
napull assembly), head parts room clerk and utility winders and as-
semblers (all in electrical production department), utility leadman
(plant engineering department), and receiving clerk, head shipping
clerk, head tool crib attendant, truckdrivers, receiving and claim clerk
(all in material control, parts, and equipment shipping department),
the assistant to the plant superintendent, and the order clerk, senior
clerks, junior technicians, steel order clerk (all in production control
department), and the cafeteria employees; and excluding all em-
ployees in industrial engineering department (including time-study
employees), industrial relations department, executive department,
'lousing department, purchasing department, engineering department
{including the chief engineer records clerk, design draftsman, drafts-
man, and engineering draftsman), traffic department and the account-
ing department (including the cost analyst and normal cost analyst),
and the stenographer in the production control department, and all
other office clericals, professionals, guards and watchmen, the indus-
trial chemist (heat treat, press and forge, laboratory department), and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.12
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
32 The parties stipulated to the exclusion of the employees in the following depart-
ments : Industrial engineering, industrial relations, executive, and housing . The Peti-
tioner also sought in its petition to exclude sales employees , certain students and instruc-
tors, messengers, and busdrivers The Employer has, however, no such employees. Neither
does it possess a "standards department," the employees of which the Petitioner also sought
to exclude.
Sigman Food Stores #27 , Petitioner and Retail Clerks Union,
Local No. 631, and Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL and The Hotel , Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International , AFL, and Culinary Workers, Local No. 298.
Case No. 19-1 4-161. August 15, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John H. Immel, Jr.,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
five from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
113 NLRB No. 70.
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the operation of 19 retail food stores
located in the States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. This case
concerns the store, designated as #27, at Moses Lake, Washington,
which began operation on February 17,1955.
The Employer seeks a determination of the bargaining representa-
tive of a unit of all employees at store #27, excluding the retail meat
cutters and wrappers, the bakers, bakers' helpers, and bread wrappers,
employees working 8 hours or less per week, the store manager, and
the assistant store manager. It would also exclude the following classi-
fications although there are no employees presently classified as such
nor are there any plans to hire these classifications in the near future :
Office clerical employees, janitors, and guards.
The Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 631 and the Retail Clerks In-
ternational Association, AFL, herein referred to as the Retail Clerks,
would change the above unit to include the bread wrapper, the as-
sistant store manager, and the classification of clerical employees, and
to exclude the snack bar employees. The Hotel, Restaurant Em-
ployees and Bartenders International, AFL, and Culinary Workers
Local No. 298, herein called the Culinary Workers, seek a unit of em-
ployees engaged in the preparation and handling of food, the snack
bar employees. The only employees at the store currently represented
by a labor organization are the meat cutters and wrappers the em-
ployees in the meat department.
The Employer's stores are assigned to 1 of 2 district offices which are
located in Spokane, Washington. Under the general manager, there
are district supervisory personnel: a district meat supervisor and a
grocery supervisor for each district-1 located in Yakima and 1 in
Spokane, and a single bakery supervisor for both districts, as only
8 stores have bakery production departments. Of the 19 stores op-
erated by the Employer, 8 are similar to the Moses Lake operation in
that they have the same operating units, i. e., grocery, produce, meat,
bakery production, bakery sales, and a snack bar.
The store manager of store #27 is the overall supervisor of the
store, with particular supervision and management of the grocery,
produce, snack bar, and bakery sales. He is directly responsible to
the district grocery supervisor and discusses the bakery production
SIGMAN FOOD STORES NO. 2 7 691.
problems with the district bakery supervisor, and meat department
problems with the district meat supervisor.
It appears from the record that under the store manager is an as-
sistant store manager, and the bakery production department, the meat
department, and the produce department have a departmental man-
ager. However, no contention is made that the produce manager has
supervisory authority. Store #27 employs from 30 to 40 employees.
All employees in produce, grocery, bakery sales, and the snack bar
are paid weekly at an hourly rate, work the same hours, and enjoy
the same privileges and benefits. Grocery and produce employees as
well as checkers are paid a slightly higher rate than bakery sales
and snack bar employees because the work is more arduous. Al-
though the store is a self-service store, bakery sales girls take care
of their own sales and their sales are not checked out as are grocery,
produce, and meat.
. The first unit issue to be determined is whether the snack bar em-
ployees should constitute a separate bargaining unit in accordance
with the contentions of the labor, organizations involved or should be
a part of a larger unit as the Employer asserts. The snack bar is
located at the front of the store without any physical barriers separat-
ing.it from the rest of the store. It is equipped with a fountain and a
steam table for preparing and serving food and drinks. The snack
bar employees are under the immediate supervision of the store man-
ager and assistant manager as are the grocery and bakery sales em-
'ployees. As indicated above, they share common working conditions
with the grocery, produce, and bakery sales employees. At the time
of the hearing, about 2 months after store #27 opened, there had been
no change in the original crew of 5 employees in the snack bar, but
the Employer's general manager testified that transfer to and from
the snack.bar and other sections of the store are frequent at other stores
of the Employer.
The Board has in some circumstances found that restaurant or cafe-
teria employees constitute a separate appropriate unit 1 and in different
circumstances has found that such employees are properly included
in an overall unit.2 The facts of this case, in the Board's opinion, do
not warrant a finding that the snack bar employees constitute a homo-
geneous grouping appropriate for separate bargaining upon a de-
partmental, or other basis. On the other hand, the facts show a close
relationship between the interest of snack bar employees and other
employees in the proposed overall unit. Accordingly, the Board will
include the snack bar employees in the larger unit hereafter found
appropriate.
See Allied Stores of Ohio, 90 NLRB 1808 and cases cited therein.
See Sunnyland Packing Company, 113 NLRB 162; F. W. Woolworth Co., 107 NLRB
752; Walgreen Co., 97 NLRB 1101; S. H. Kress & Co., 92 NLRB 15, Maas Bros.,
Inc., 88 NLRB 129 ; Wise, Smith & Company, Inc., 83 NLRB 1019.
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
There remains for consideration the status of the assistant store
manager and the unit placement of the bread wrapper. Each of the
Employer's stores is under the immediate supervision of a store man-
ager, who has complete responsibility for the operation of the store
under his charge with the authority to hire and discharge. In store
#27, the Moses Lake store, the Employer has also designated an as-
sistant store manager who, in the store manager's absence , assumes all
the store manager's responsibility and authority. The store hours are
from 9 a. in. to 9 p. in. 6 days a week, and the store manager and assist-
ant store manager divide the shift each day so that either one or both
are present at all times. The store manager receives a salary plus a,
commission which equals about 25 percent over the earnings of the
assistant store manager who is on a salary which is approximately 15,
percent above the amount paid grocery department employees. All
employees, except the store manager and the assistant store manager
are paid a salary based on an hourly rate. The general manager testi-
fied that he had personally told the assistant manager that he was in
charge of the store and responsible for the direction of the employees
when the manager was absent. As the assistant store manager daily
substitutes for the manager and has the authority to discharge em-
ployees and to effect changes in their status, we find that he is a super-
visor as defined in the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude him from
the unit.'
The Employer within a week of the hearing date, installed a me-
chanical bakery wrapping machine. This machine has been placed
at the front of the bakery production department, and at the present
time is operated by one employee exclusively. A self-service rack
has been installed which has changed the Employer's method of wrap-
ping, and extra equipment has been installed to prepackage this self-
service bakery merchandise. As this service is unavailable in other
-stores of the Employer and has been in use so short a period at this-
store, no evidence was available as to the tiwe that will be consumed
performing the wrapping operation. Presumably, any spare time the
wrapper has will be spent in bakery selling. As the duties of the bread
wrapper are uncertain at this time, we shall refrain from determining
whether that classification should be excluded as a part of the bakery
production group or included in the present unit herein found ap-
propriate, and shall permit the bread wrapper to vote subject to
challenge.
The Employer and the Retail Clerks agree to exclude all employees
working 8 hours or less per week. Accordingly, we exclude such em-
ployees and find them ineligible to vote in the election directed herein.
The parties disagree as to whether a determination should be made
at this time as to the unit placement of office clerical employees. There
3 Walgreen Co., supra.
TAYLOR FORGE AND PIPE WORKS 693:
are no office clerical employees nor does the Employer contemplate the
employment of this classification of employees in the near future. We
shall make no unit determination with respect to them .4
We find the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit-
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All employees at Employer's store #27, at Moses Lake, Washington,,
including the grocery, produce, bakery sales, and snack bar employees,
but excluding employees working 8 hours or less per week, the store
manager, the assistant store manager, the retail meat cutters and
wrappers, bakery production employees, guards, and supervisors as-.
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 American Smelting d Refining Company , 102 NLRB 1489.
Taylor Forge and Pipe Works and Forge and Machine Work-
ers Industrial Union . Case No. 13-CA-1727. August 16, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 15, 1955, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re--
spon'dent,had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practice's
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) of the Act and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma--
tive action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the In-
termediate Report with a supporting brief.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made-at.
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire rec-
ord in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and rec-
onunendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions
and modifications.
In adopting the findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner
that the Respondent, by refusing the requested information, thereby-
violated'Section_ 8 (a) (5) of the Act, we do not mean to establish,
as claimed by our dissenting colleagues, that "an employer is required
to furnish every fact, occurrence and thought which can even re-
motely be said to relate to wages." 2 In the present instance, however,-
'The Respondent also requested oral argument . In our opinion , the record, including-
the exceptions and brief , fully presents the issues and the positions of the parties. Ac-
cordingly , the request for oral argument is denied.
2 The Board has recognized that there are limits to the type of information an employer
is obligated to furnish the Union . See McLean-Arkansas Lumber Company, Inc, 109-
113 NLRB No. 65.