The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 680 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY,
EMPLOYER and LOCAL UNION #227, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS
AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 9-RC-500 and 9-RC-504.-Decided August 11, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed, a hearing in the above-consolidated cases
was held before William A. McGowan, hearing officer. 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-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Murdock].
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 involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner requests two separate units; the first to be com-
posed of all regular employees in all departments of the Employer's
retail store in Danville, Kentucky, excluding the store manager, assist-
ant store manager and office, clerical employees; the second unit to
consist of all regular employees in all departments of the Employer's
two stores at Lexington, Kentucky, with the same exclusions. The
Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is that which would
include all stores under the supervision of the "Louisville unit" out-
side the metropolitan area of Louisville.
The "Louisville unit" is an administrative subdivision of the Em-
ployer's Nation-wide chain of retail grocery stores and includes 98
stores in Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, and Illinois, in an area
85 N. L. R. B., No.121.
680
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 681
roughly 420 miles by 300 miles. Of the 98 stores under direction from
Louisville, 21 are in the Louisville metropolitan area and are repre-
sented by the Petitioner in one unit. The remaining retail outlets of
the Employer are dispersed among'69 separate cities and towns in the
region. Danville and Lexington, where the stores in the instant peti-
tions are located, are approximately 30 miles apart and about 80 miles
from Louisville.
The Employer's operating system combines centralized control
together with a measure of local discretion. Wage rates, weekly hours
of work, overtime, and vacation and insurance programs are uniform
for the whole system. On the other hand, the local manager may hire
or discharge subject to later approval by a supervisor; has a local pay
roll and pays the weekly wages from the individual store receipts, and
is the local representative of the Employer. While personnel poli-
cies are uniform, not alone in the Louisville unit but also throughout
the entire system of the Employer's, matters of local store hours and
holidays may vary according to local conditions. The store manager
in each store orders his supplies from Louisville and has very limited
authority to purchase on local markets. The Employer contends that
there is a considerable amount of interchange of personnel between
stores and has submitted data to substantiate this contention., How-
ever, on examination of this material, it appears that the great ma-
jority of transfers of personnel are among stores in the Louisville
area.2 There is no showing of substantial interchange between the
stores concerned herein and others in the "Louisville unit" outside the
metropolitan area.
We have previously considered issues, similar to that presented here,
in other cases involving retail grocery chains. We have, on occasion,
held that the appropriate unit in such situations is one corresponding
to the administrative division of the employer and therefore found a
proposed unit limited to one store inappropriate.3 However, in view
of the geographical separation of the stores in this administrative
area, the lack of any substantial interchange of employees, the existence
of a degree of local autonomy in matters of pay rolls, hiring, and dis-
2 The Employer, after the hearing, moved to have this material incorporated in the
record. In the absence of any objection from the Petitioner , the motion is hereby granted
and the document entitled "A & P Exhibit #4" is hereby made .6 part of the record.
2 There is also considerable interchange among stores in the Nashville and Memphis
areas. The records submitted by the Employer concern the first 6 months of the present
year. One of the Lexington stores , in that time had two transfers of employees to
other stores and two from other cities to that location. The other Lexington retail
outlet recorded one transfer from another store and no transfers to other cities. The
Danville store had a total of three employees shifted to other stores and no transfers
,of personnel , other than managerial , to Danville . Of transfers affecting these three stores
only one appeared to be of a temporary nature.
8 See Matter of The Grand Union Company, 81 N. L. R. B. 1016.
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charges, and the fact that a city-wide unit has already been established
elsewhere in the area,4 we believe that the city-wide units proposed by
the Petitioner are appropriate.5
Accordingly, we find that :
(1) In Case No. 9-RC-500-all regular employees in all depart-
ments of the Employer's retail store in Danville, Kentucky, excluding
the store manager, assistant store manager, and office, clerical em-
ployees and all other supervisors as defined in the Act; and
(2) In Case No. 9-RC-504-all regular employees in all depart-
ments of the Employer's retail stores in Lexington, Kentucky, exclud-
ing the store manager, assistant store manager, and office, clerical
employees, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act constitute
units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within tho
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Petitioner requests, further, that the units include all regu-
lar employees working 20 hours a week or more, as determined by the
4-week period immediately preceding the election, and that all other
part-time employees be excluded from voting. The Employer main-
tains that all part-time employees should be excluded regardless of
the number of hours worked. Full-time employees of the Employer
-work a standard 45-hour week. Supplementing the full-time person-
nel are employees who work subject to call, are hired at a stationary
wage rate and who are not included in employee benefits such as
vacation and insurance programs. It was estimated that 50 percent
of this part-time group work every week while the remaining fill in
only as needed. The part-time employee is assigned a job classifica-
tion according to his ability but is paid only the minimum wage for
that classification. On these facts, and in accordance with our usual
-custom, we find that the part-time employees who work 20 hours a
week or more regularly, have sufficient and substantial tenure and
interest in the conditions of employment to be eligible to vote in the
election hereinafter ordered e
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, elections by
secret ballot shall bL conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
4 The Louisville stores would seemingly be more a part of the "unit " organization
than the stores involved here , inasmuch as their hiring is done by the unit personnel
office rather than through local managers.
See Mater of American Stores Company , 82 N. L . it. B. 882; Matter of Tanner-Brice
Company, 82 N. L. R. B. 477.
See Matter of Providence Public Market Co., 79 N . L. it. B 1482.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 683
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which these cases
were heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees
in the units found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the elections, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by Local Union #227, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL.