Safeway Stores, Inc.

528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD set aside, and that the complaint therein be, and it hereby is, dis- missed in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on December 13, 1949, and the certification of representatives issued on April 14, 1950, in Case No. 13-RM-58, be, and they hereby are, set aside and that the petition filed therein be, and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice. SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA , AFL, LOCAL No. 537, FOOD HANDLERS DIVISION , PETITIONER1 Case No. 20 RCi-17OO. March 11, 1953 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before M. C. Dempster, 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 Herzog and Members Houston and Styles]. 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 employees of the Employer.2 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all food handlers, stockers, baggers, full-time and part-time, employed by the Employer at its Price, Utah, store, excluding meat cutters and meat wrappers and supervisors. While not objecting to the composition of the unit, the Intervenor contends that the unit sought is inappropriate. The Em- ployer is and has been a member of an area association of retail employers which, since 1942 or earlier, has bargained collectively with the Intervenor for all retail clerks in their establishments. Although the Employer initially took a neutral position on scope of the appro- priate unit, it later contended that its Price, Utah, grocery employees The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing. 2 United Retail Employees - of America, CIO, Local Union No. 995, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its past and present contracts. 98 NLRB No. 95. SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED 529 belong in the association-wide unit because the Employer has jointly bargained for these employees through the Association, has not with- drawn from such joint bargaining, and does not intend to do so. The Petitioner recognizes the 10-year history of collective bargain- ing on a multiple-employer basis, but argues that the Employer's relationship with the Association does not suffice to make an associa- tion-wide unit the only appropriate one. In support of this conten- tion, the Petitioner relies on three factors : (1) The fact that the Employer has never delegated authority to make a binding contract either to the Association or to its representatives at the negotiation meetings, (2) the fact that the Employer, in 1951, entered into a wage agreement with the Intervenor which was not bargained for by the Association, and (3) the fact that the members of the Association include furniture and appliance stores and dry goods clerks, as well as food handlers. We find no merit to the Petitioner's contention. The participation of the Employer in joint negotiations, its uniform adoption of the agreement resulting from such negotiations, and the position it took at the hearing in this case, in our opinion, present clear evidence that it intends to be bound in collective bargaining by group rather than individual action, which requires that we hold the requested single-employer unit inappropriate.3 With respect to the first factor relied upon by the Petitioner, it is now well established that the fact that an association has no authority to bind its members does not militate against the propriety of an association-wide Unit .4 With respect to the second factor to which Petitioner refers, we note that in 1950 the association members, including Safeway Stores, entered into a master contract, containing an annual automatic re- newal provision. In 1951 the Safeway Stores did sign a separate supplemental agreement, on the minimum wage scale, which was not negotiated by or with the Association. The agreement, however, was a "supplemental agreement" which by its terms "becomes a part of the general agreement," which had been negotiated by the Associa- tion in February 1950. In view of the over-all and basic matters covered by the master contract to which the Employer was, and re- mained, a party, we find the individually negotiated supplement to the wage clause insignificant as evidence that the Employer abandoned group action 5 So far as the Petitioner's last contention is concerned, we believe that in view of the long history of successful bargaining, the increased diversity in the merchandise sold by all member stores, ' See Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc., 81 NLRB 224 ; Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentration Company, 89 NLRB 243 ; cf. Coca-Cola Bottling Works Company, 93 NLRB 1414. 6 See Balaban & Katz, 87 NLRB 1071; Abbotts Dairies, Inc., et at., 97 NLRB 1064. " See Furniture Employers' Council of Southern California, Inc., and Member Employers, et al , 96 NLRB 1002. 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and the fact that employees within the stores intermingle and move from retailing one type of merchandise to another, there is no reason to question the propriety of the association of such employers .6 Accordingly, we conclude that the unit requested by the Petitioner is too limited in scope, and we shall dismiss the present petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 9 See Marin County Employers Council, affiliated with . California Association of Em- ployers, et at., 87 NLRB 296. FOREMAN & CLARK, INC. and LOCAL 297 , AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. d1-RC-1836. 01urch 11, 1952 Supplemental Decision and Denial of Motion to Stay Direction of Election, to Vacate Supplemental Decision , for Reconsidera- tion or Rehearing, and for Oral Argument On August 31, 1951, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1 dis- missing the petition in the above-entitled case. On November 9, 1951, the Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board Deci- sion and Order dismissing its petition. Thereafter, on January 16, 1952, the Board issued its Supplemental Decision and Direction of Election 2 in which the Board granted the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and found, contrary to the majority in the original decision,3 that the unit sought was appropriate. The Employer, on February 4, 1952, filed a motion to stay direction of election, to vacate the supplemental decision and for reconsideration or rehearing, and for oral argument. In its motion the Employer attacks the supplemental decision in the following respects : (1) The unit found to be appropriate was so found solely on the basis of extent of organization. (2) The Board's findings, that the employees involved are a highly skilled, distinct, and homogeneous departmental group, are erroneous. (3) The reconsideration of the original decision by the Board was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. 195 NLRB 1504. 2 97 NLRB 1080. 8 Decided by a three-member panel pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, Member Murdock dissenting. 98 NLRB No. 91.