The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 61 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY,
EMPLOYER and TONY MEYERS AND CHARLES A. THORNTON, PETITION-
ERS and DISTRICT UNION No. 1470, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN. FEDERATION OF LABOR,
UNION
Case No. 13-RD-37.-Decided September 21, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, a hearing was held
before Herman J. De Koven, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chair-
man Herzog and Members Houston and Gray].
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 Petitioners assert that the Union is no longer the represent-
ative of certain employees of the Employer, as defined in Section 9
(a) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization recognized by the
Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees
designated in the petition.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2'(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
Tony Meyers, one of the Petitioners, herein, is employed as assistant
grocery manager in the Employer's Rock Island, Illinois, store, in-
volved in this proceeding. Charles A. Thornton, the other Petitioner,
is employed as produce manager in the same store. Meyers has the
power to hire and discharge employees, and has exercised that power.
He also manages the store during the frequent absence of the grocery
86 N. L. R. B., No. 12.
61
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
manager. Thornton has several employees working under his direc-
tion. He has the power effectively to recommend their discharges
and he has exercised that power on several occasions. The Petitioners
solicited and obtained, during working hours, the employee signa-
tures for the prima facie showing of interest to accompany the
petition.
We find that the Petitioners are supervisors, within the meaning of
the Act, and, for reasons expressed in an earlier decision,' are there-
fore ineligible to represent the Employer's employees in this pro-
ceeding. We shall for this reason dismiss the petition.2
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
' Matter of Clyde J. Merris, 77 N. L . R. B. 1375.
2 We find it therefore unnecessary to consider the other issues raised In this , proceeding