Thalhimer Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 1175 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THALIIIMER BROTHERS , INCORPORATED , EMPLOYER and
RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION , LOCAL 157, A. F. L.,
PETITIONER
Case No. 5-RC-197.-Decided March 4,1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case was held before
a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hear-
ing 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.'
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning
pf Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all employees in the Em-
ployer's departments engaged in the processing, handling, and serving
*Reynolds, Murdock , and Gray.
I At the hearing and in its brief, the Employer urges that the Board has no jurisdiction
over it upon the ground that the departmental purchases and sales of the department
involved are purely local in character . We find no merit in this contention in that we
have already held the Employer to be engaged in commerce under the Act. See Matter of
Thalhimer Brothers, Incorporated, 77 N. L. R. B. 1249 and Case No. 5-RC-131 . Likewise,
we have previously held that a branch of an employer , although somewhat localized in
character, cannot be considered as something separate and apart from other divisions of the
employer 's business which comprise an integrated whole engaged in commerce . N. L. R. B.
v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Company , Clemons Branch, 132 F. (2d) 234, 235. See also Butler
Brothers v. N. L. it. B., 134 F. ( 2d) 981 , 983; G. A D. Radiator Service and Terrill-Phelps
Chevrolet Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 1308 and cases cited therein.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 179.
1175
1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of food stufs,2 but excluding all other store employees, clerical help,
warehouse and delivery departments, and supervisors as defined by the
Act. The Employer contends that the unit is inappropriate on the
ground that the Petitioner submitted no evidence at the hearing as
to the appropriateness of the unit herein sought, and that the Peti-
tioner's unit request is based solely upon extent of organization.
The employees sought comprise a separate department in the Em-
ployer's retail store under the over-all supervision of the divisional
merchandise manager. The department includes a soda fountain,
basement fountain, men's soup bar, tea cart room, and an employees'
lunch room. All the above activities exist solely for the convenience
of the Employer's customers and the employees at the store. Except
for the salad mixers who come under the same over-all supervision as
the other employees involved, each group comes under separate im-
mediate supervision, maintains its own kitchen, and procures and
sells its own food. There is no past collective bargaining history
concerning these employees, or other employees at the Employer's
store except for a unit consisting of warehouse employees.'
While the functions performed by the cafeteria employees are not
directly connected with the production processes of the Employer, we
have previously held that the interests of cafeteria and production
and maintenance employees are not so dissimilar that both groups
cannot properly be represented in a single unit .4 Although the extent
of organization is still one of the factors to be weighed in determin-
ing the appropriateness of a unit, we conclude, on the present record,
that the extent of organization would actually be the controlling justi-
fication for finding that a separate unit of food handlers sought
herein is appropriate. We find, therefore, that the unit is inappro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining under the provisions of
the amended Acts Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HFREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and cer-
tification of representatives of employees of Thalhimer Brothers,
Incorporated, Richmond, Virginia, filed by Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association, Local 157, A. F. L., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
2 The petition was amended at the hearing to specifically include in the unit sought
herein, waitresses, sandwich girls, cooks, salad mixers, cafeteria workers, kitchen help,
fountain workers, soup bar employees, and tea room employees, but to exclude all other
store employees, clerical help, warehouse and delivery department employees, and super-
visors as defined by the Act.
3 See Matter of Thalhimer Brothers, Incorporated, supra. In Case No. 5-RC-131 the
union involved lost an election among the Employer's truck drivers.
' See Matter of The Globe Company, 60 N. L. it. B. 1312; Matter of Standard Romper
Co., Inc., 77 N. L. R. B. 421.
" Section 9 (c) (5).