The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1018 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fects. In the interest of maintaining our high standards of election
procedure, therefore, we have no alternative but to set this election
aside and to direct a new election.4
[The Board set aside the election held on November 16, 1956.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
* In view of this disposition , we find it unnecessary to consider the other reasons advanced
by the Employer for upsetting the election.
Like the Acting Regional Director, and for the reasons expressed in the supplemental
report on objections, we do not regard as determinative herein the fact that the parties
agreed to the election arrangements or that the person acting as observer for both parties
signed the certification of conduct of election. See Silvino aiannasca, d/b/a Imperial
Reed d Rattan Furniture Co., supra.
The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company and Amalgamated
Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner
The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company and Retail Clerks
International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 11-RC-
976 and 11-RC.-968. August 13,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Jerold B. Sindler, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Rodgers,
and Bean].
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 involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units :
The Petitioner in Case No. 11-RC-976, Amalgamated Meat Cutters
& Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Meat Cutters, seeks a unit of all employees engaged in handling,
cutting, selling, displaying, processing or wrapping meat, poultry
or fish at the Employer's store at 317 Hays Street, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, including the head meat cutters and meat department heads,
118 NLRB No. 130.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 1019
but excluding grocery clerks, produce clerkN, dairy clerks, head
cashiers (bookkeepers), store managers, assistant store managers, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act. The Petitioner in Case
No. 11-RC-968, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Retail Clerks, seeks a unit of all retail food clerks
employed at the Employer's aforementioned store, excluding all meat
department employees, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer generally
agrees that the units requested are appropriate. However, the Em-
ployer contends that the heads of the produce departments and the
head cashiers should be excluded from the Retail Clerks' unit on the
ground that they are supervisors. Alternatively, the Employer urges
that the head cashiers should be excluded on the ground that they are
office clerical employees. The Retail Clerks contend that these in-
dividuals should be included. The Employer further contends that
the meat department heads' should be excluded from the Meat Cutters'
unit because they are supervisors. The Meat Cutters urge their in-
clusion. So far as appears on the record, there is no history of
collective bargaining covering the employees here sought.
At the hearing in these proceedings, the parties stipulated that the
record made in earlier proceedings between the parties involving the
Employer's stores in Greensboro, North Carolina (Cases Nos. 11-
RC-914 and 11-RC-915), should be made a part of the instant record,
and further agreed that the evidence adduced in the earlier proceedings
concerning the unit placement of the disputed categories in those cases
is applicable to the same categories in dispute herein. On March 8,
1957, the Board rendered a decision in those cases 2 in which it excluded
the meat department heads from the Meat Cutters' unit on the ground
that they were supervisors because they possessed the authority to
grant time off as well as effectively to recommend the hire and dis-
charge of employees under them. The Board also excluded the pro-
duce department heads from the Retail Clerks' unit on supervisory
grounds, finding that these individuals possessed authority to disci-
pline employees in these departments and effectively to recommend
their hire and discharge. The Board further excluded the head cash-
iers from the Retail Clerks' unit for the reason that, although they
possessed none of the indicia of supervisory authority, their duties
were essentially the same as those performed by office clerical em-
ployees whom the Retail Clerks would exclude from the unit.
In view of the foregoing stipulation, and the Board's decision in
the aforementioned earlier proceedings between the parties, we find
that the meat department heads and the produce department heads
at the Employer's store at 317 Hays Street, Fayetteville, North Caro-
It does not appear that the Employer employs any head meat cutters.
The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company , 117 NLRB 554.
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lina, are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and are therefore
excluded from the units requested herein. We also find that the head
cashiers at this location are office clerical employees and we shall there-
fore exclude them from the Retail Clerks' unit.
We find, in accordance with the foregoing, that the following groups
of employees at the Employer's retail store at 317 Hays Street, Fay-
etteville, North Carolina, constitute separate units appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act:
(a) All employees engaged in handling, cutting, selling, displaying,
processing or wrapping meat, poultry or fish, including regular part-
time employees,' excluding grocery clerks, produce clerks, dairy clerks,
head cashiers (bookkeepers), watchmen, guards, meat department
heads, store managers, assistant store managers, . and all other super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(b) All retail food clerks, including regular part-time employees 4
but excluding all meat department employees, head cashiers (book-
keepers) and other office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, pro-
duce department heads, store managers, assistant store managers, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
' In the record in Cases Nos . 11-RC-914 and 11-RC-915, the parties stipulated that
only those part- time employees who performed part -time duties each week for 18 weeks
immediately prior to the issuance of notice of election should be included in the unit and
permitted to vote. In its decision in those cases , the Board construed this stipulation to
include all regular part-time employees who had a reasonable expectancy of continued
employment with the Employer , inasmuch as the Employer also employed casuals. The
Board therefore included these regular part -time employees and found that they were
eligible to vote. In view of the stipulation in the instant proceedings , we also find that
these regular part-time employees are included in the unit and are eligible to vote in the
election directed herein.
4 Ibid.
The Celotex Corporation and United Packinghouse Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-1595. August
14,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William W. Fox, 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 this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
1 The Employer's motion to dismiss the petition is granted for the reasons stated infra.
118 NLRB No. 137.