The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 865 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 865
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company , National Produce
Division and Local 424, Packing of Grain, Fertilizers and
Processors of Allied Food Industries , International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-7204. August 19,
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 I. L.. Broadwin, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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. Following the hearing in the instant proceeding, the Petitioner,
stating by affidavit that between the filing of its petition and the date
of the hearing it had disaffiliated from Amalgamated Processors and
Allied Food Workers, AFL; and had affiliated with Local 424 of the
Teamsters, AFL, moved that the name "Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, Amalgamated Processors
and Allied Food Workers, Local 501, AFL," under which it had filed
its original and amended petitions and appeared at the hearing, be
amended to read : "Local 424, Packing of Grain, Fertilizers and
Processors of Allied Food Industries, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL." The Employer moves to dismiss the petition contending that
the Petitioner, by seeking at this time to amend its name without
simultaneously furnishing a second showing of interest to reflect its
reaffiliation, is thereby seeking improperly to evade the Board's estab-
lished requirement respecting the showing, of interest. -
The showing of interest requirement- was designed by the Board
primarily as an administrative expedient to avoid the time and expense
which would otherwise be expended in the processing of insubstantial
claims to recognition. At the time of filing its original and amended
petitions, the Petitioner, having satisfied the Board's showing of
interest requirement, had established a substantial claim to recogni-
tion. During the course of its disaffiliation and reaffiliation, it main-
1 In view of our action in paragraph 3 of the instant decision, granting the Petitioner's
motion to amend its name , the petition and other formal papers in this proceeding are
hereby amended to reflect the Petitioner' s current correct name , as it appears in the title
to this case.
113 NLRB No. 97.
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tained its identity as a labor organization? It thus appears that all
that would be accomplished by requiring a second showing of interest
at this time would be a reaffirmation by a substantial number of the
employees in the unit that they approved the change in•affiliation and
still desire to be represented by the Petitioner, notwithstanding its
change of affiliation. There is nothing to suggest that the change in
affiliation was not in accord with the desires of these employees. In
our opinion, the additional showing of interest at the present stage of
this proceeding would serve only to create unnecessary delay and ex-
pense which the showing of interest requirement, in its normal appli-
cation, seeks to avoid. As an immediate election can best determine
the true wishes of all the employees in the unit with respect to their
choice of a bargaining representative, we perceive no sound reason
for requiring a new showing of interest at this time. Accordingly, we
grant the Petitioner's motion to amend its name, and we deny the
Employer's motion to dismiss.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees at the Employer's
five potato warehouses situated on Long Island, New York, excluding
clerical employees and supervisors. The Employer contends that an
election. cannot be held in the unit at this time, because of (a) the
alleged seasonal and intermittent nature of the Employer's operations
and high rate of turnover of its employees; and (b) the alleged status
of the employees as agricultural employees. As to (a), the Employer's
warehouses are operated an average of 22 weeks a year, and up to
24 percent of the employees return from year to year. As to (b), the
employees in the unit work only in the packingsheds, at which points
the Employer hires and discharges all packingshed employees and
places them on its payroll. Under these circumstances, we find that
the employees herein involved have sufficiently substantial interests in
their employment to warrant.an election at this time.' We further
find that they are not agricultural employees within the meaning of
the Act.4 We therefore find the Employer's contentions without merit.
Accordingly, we find that all employees at the Employer's five
potato warehouses, at Mattituck, Peconic, Port Jefferson, Watermill,
and Wainscott, respectively, on Long Island, New York, including
graders, packers, and loaders, but excluding clerical employees and
.supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
. s See American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418 , footnote 1, and cases
cited.
8 C. A. Glass Company , Inc, Coachella Valley Division , 111 NLRB 1366; Underwriters
Salvage Company of New York, 99 NLRB 337.
0. A, Glass Company, Inc., supra.
BADENHAUSEN CORPORATION 867,
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b}
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM, dissenting in part :
We would require the Petitioner to submit a showing of interest,
prior to the date of the election, indicating that at least 30 percent of
the employees in the unit found appropriate have designated the
Petitioner, under its amended name, as their bargaining representa-
tive. In our opinion, the showing of interest, obtained while the
Petitioner was affiliated with another International, is by no means
indicative of the employees' wishes with respect to a bargaining repre-
sentative as we have no warrant for supposing that the employees
would sign authorization cards on behalf of the Petitioner under its
new affiliation if they were apprised of that fact. If the purpose for
ascertaining a showing of interest is to obviate the holding of useless
elections, as it unquestionably is, it seems to be sounder policy to make
certain that the Petitioner under its present affiliation has a sufficient
showing rather than to incur the expense of an election which may
well prove to be futile.
Badenhausen Corporation and Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-2678. August 19, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Chester S. Montgomery,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. On November 17, 1954, the Employer and United Steelworkers
of America, CIO, herein referred to as the Steelworkers, which rep-
resents the Employer's production and maintenance employees, exe-
cuted a collective-bargaining agreement, effective until November
1956, containing the following clause : "The term employees, as used-
in this' agreement, shall not include supervisors, foremen, assistant
foremen, inspectors, timekeepers, time-study men, plant protective em-
-'The Employer 's motion to - dismiss the petition on various grounds is denied for the
reasons set forth below.
113 NLRB No. 96.