Autry Greer & Sons

44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Petitioner is sufficiently stable to warrant the holding of an im- mediate election.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 6 Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company, 107 NLRB 1327. Autry Greer & Sons and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 991, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-1178. April 5,1955 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 William P. Hutcheson, 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 the case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer, a partnership, is engaged in the retail grocery business. All of its business establishments are located within the State of Alabama. The Petitioner seeks to represent employees em- ployed in the Employer's feed, produce, "wholesale," 1 and retail ware- house departments. The Employer contends that each of these de- partments is a separate Employer within the meaning of the Act and that as, individually, such departments do not do a sufficient amount of interstate business to meet the Board's jurisdictional standards juris- diction should not be asserted in the case. Although some of the Em- ployer's business units, including the departments involved in the case, are operated with a certain degree of independence in that they are under the separate immediate supervision of different managers, maintain separate bookkeeping systems and, to a certain extent, buy and sell from one another, the record reveals that the general manage- ment of all of the units is handled through the partnership's central office, by the various partners, that the wages of the employees in all of the units are paid from the central office, and that a substantial amount of the purchases for all of the units are made by that office. The record further indicates that although unit managers may recom- mend the establishment of or changes in personnel and labor relations policies the ultimate decisions in such matters rest with the partners. Upon the foregoing we find that all of the Employer's combined op- 1 The word wholesale does not accurately describe the operations of this department. .It does no wholesale selling. It sells retail in large quantities to institutions and ships. 112 NLRB No. 6. AUTRY GREER & SONS 45 <erations constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall consider the total of its interstate transactions to determine whether or not the Board should assert jurisdiction.2 During the calendar year of 1954 the Employer purchased goods valued at $750,000 directly from suppliers located without the State of Alabama. During that same period the Employer purchased goods valued at $1,550,000 through local "brokers," all of which goods were shipped directly to the Employer from suppliers located out of the State. As the Employer's combined direct and indirect inflow of goods from without the State of Alabama is valued in excess of $2,000,000 we find, in accord with The Brass Rail Inc., 110 NLRB 1656, that the Employer is engaged in interstate commerce and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. 2. The labor organization involved clanns to represent employees 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 seeks to represent, as part of one appropriate unit, all truckclrivers, helpers, and warehousemen employed in the Employer's feed, produce, wholesale, and retail warehouse depart- ments. The Employer contends that only separate units of the em- ployees in each department are appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. While the terms and conditions of employment at each department are not exactly the same, in that there are differ- ences in the hours of work and methods of payment of wages, the record shows that all of the employees sought for representation possess similar skills and are required to perform substantially the same duties. Generally, they are responsible for the storing, handling, and transportation of perishable goods. Further, as is stated above, the ultimate decisions as to personnel and labor relations policies in the four departments are made centrally by the Employer partners. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the employees concerned in the proceeding. Although the various departments are located in separate buildings, such buildings are very closely situated. Three of the buildings are adjacent to one another, separated only by fire walls; the fourth is located approximately two city blocks from the others. No other union seeks to represent these employees separately. Upon the above facts we find that the truckdrivers, helpers, and warehousemen employed in the Employer's feed, wholesale, produce, and retail warehouse departments constitute an appropriate unit for 2 See Hogue and Knott Supermarkets, 110 NLRB 543. 46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the purposes of collective bargaining. Accordingly, we shall direct an election among the following employees : All truckclrivers, helpers, and warehousemen employed in the Em- ployer's feed, wholesale, produce, and retail warehouse departments lo- cated in Mobile, Alabama, excluding all other employees, office cler- ical employees, professional employees, guards, 3vatchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Direction of Election. General Telephone Company of Michigan and Communications Workers of America, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 7-PC-2522. A pril 5,1955 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 Russell W. Bradley, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and tae 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. 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.' i The Boat (1, on January 4, 1955, issued an Order granting a motion filed by the Peti- tioner to coiiect the record in certain respects "The inteivenoi, International B, otlierhood of Electrical workers, Locals 1177, 1401, and 1410, AFL, intervened upon the basis of its conti.icts covering employees involved herein 3 At the hearing, the lntervenoi moved to dismiss the petition, alleging the absence of a question concerning iepiosentat,on. upon two grounds (1) contract bar, and (2) the Petitioners failure at any time to request recognition The heating officer ieteired these motions to the Board As the petition Ntac_ filed before the illill it date of the Inter,ennor's concurrent contiacts, it is clean, under settled Board doctrine, that the contracts, which have since expired, do not bar the petition Ii g Cent ml Itn/tna, 108 NLRB 307 , J. C Hvvsch,aan Company, 106 NLRB 529 As to (2), the Inteivenor urged in its brief that the case of Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29, is distinguishable on the ground that there, unlike the instant case, a request fo recognition Ras made after the petition iNas filed iiowemer, we hold ihat the print,ple of Adtiance Pattei,t Is applicable upon the facts herein, because, while the Petitioner at no tune specifically icquested iecogn ition, the existence of a nail question concerning representation Ras made fully apparent at the hearing See also Geneva' Shoe Corporation, 109 NLRB 618 , Asnertutn Tobacco Company, Incopoated, 108 NLRI: 1211, Stokely-Van Camp. Inc, 102 NLRB 1259, footnote 1 112 NLRB No. 7.