The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

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.