Food Fair Stores, Inc.

-FOOD -F°AIR STORES, INC. has held'that-picketing of the Employer' s` premises is inconsistent - with sii h,disclaimer.3 - In- the instant', case, however,-the evidence-is'tun- contradicted-, that picketing had ceased 1` month before-the hearin opened'- that it, had not, been resumed when the hearing continv.ed several weeks-later and has not recurred thereafter. In these circuin- -staneces and notwithstanding'the fact that-the cessation of picketing 'in this case was pursuant to the -injimc'tion of- the` New York Supreme Court, we find that-the-Union's-conduct; at and after the hearing,= h'a not=been- inconsistent with the, disclaimer of interest made at the hear- ing,' ^ We therefore find the disclaimer to be unequivocal and that a question of representation does not exist to support the Employer's petition. We shall accordingly-order that-the petition for representa- tion , of employees filed by the Employer-Petitioner be dismissed on the basis' of the disclaimer of interest by Local 1205 and Local 719. However, the Board will entertain a motion by the Employer request- ingreinstatement of the petition, in the event that either union within 6-months from the date of the Order, engages in conduct inconsistent with its' disclaimer. [The Board dismissed the petition. Michael Silvers, d/b/a Silvers Sportswear, 10,8 NLRB 588 ; Doak Aircraft Co., Iric:, 110 NLRB 792, 89,3; Swee-T-Shorts, Inc., 111 NLRB 377; Winter Grocer Company, 7117E NLRB 936; Francis Plating Go, 109 NLRB 35. Food Fair Stores, Inc. and Local 580, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. t RC-764. October T8,1955 - DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations, Act, a hearing was held before Harry E. Knowlton, 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-. 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 Employer, a Pennsylvania -corporation, is engaged-in the op; eration of a chain of retail supermarkets in the 'States of New York, 114 NLRB No. 92. 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Florida. The Petitioner seeks a ' unit of grocery and produce. em- ployees of four stores located in Stamford, Westport, and Norwalk, Connecticut. The Employer and Retail Food and Grocery Clerks Union, No. 1500, RCIA, AFL, the Intervenor, contend that, as these stores comprise but a part of the Employer's administrative ,branch No. 6, which includes the greater , New York city area and, .Connecticut, the requested unit is inappropriate. The Employer's operations, which are headquartered in Philadel- phia, are divided administratively into seven geographical branches. For a number of years collective bargaining for its stores has been conducted on a branchwide basis. Thus, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, has been represent- ing the meat and fish department employees in each of the Employer's seven administrative branches, including branch No. 6, and Retail ,Clerks' International Association, AFL, has been representing, inter alia, the grocery and produce department employees on the same basis. The four Connecticut stores, here involved, were acquired by the Employer during the latter part of 1954, at which time the Em- ployer extended the geographical area of operations of branch No. 6 to include Connecticut. In accordance with the customary policy regarding the opening of new stores within an existing branch of the Employer's operation, the Connecticut stores were thereafter brought under the Intervenor's contract.' Under the Employer's organizational structure, the branch, for the most part, controls the operations of all stores falling within its geographical area. Thus, the four Connecticut stores along with those in the greater New York city area are serviced from a common ware- house and operate under the direct supervision of the branch manager at the branch No. 6 headquarters located in New York. Although on occasion the store manager may hire and suspend employees, subject to review by the branch office before becoming effective, final authority to hire, discharge, and discipline vests in the branch manager. Super- vision on a departmental basis is branchwide. Transfer of employees occurs frequently among stores within the branch and seniority is based upon the branch system. Employee benefits in the form of wages, hours, and other conditions of employment appear to be the same for all employees within the branch. The Board has held that the appropriate collective-bargaining unit in the retail grocery trade should embrace employees of all stores lo- cated within an employer's administrative division or geographical 1 The Intervenor, whose recent contract expired on June 8, 1955, and is not asserted as a bar, has been the collective-bargaining representative for the grocery and produce employees in branch No. 6 since 1945 UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 523 area. It has also held that the fact that the administrative division may cross State lines and cover communities in more than one State does not alter the appropriateness of the unit.3 It is clear that the four stores sought by the Petitioner do not com- prise a complete geographical or administrative subdivision, nor do they on any other basis appear to constitute a separate appropriate bargaining unit.' In view of these facts and the history of collective bargaining on a branchwide basis, we are of the opinion that a unit confined to the four Connecticut stores here sought is inappropriate. Accordingly, as the Petitioner does not seek an election in the branch- wide unit and it does not appear that the Petitioner has made a suf- ficient showing of interest in this broader unit, we shall grant the Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] Jewel Food Stores, 111 NLRB 1868; Sparkle Markets Company, 113 NLRB 790; The Great Atlantic d Pacific Tea Company, 99 NLRB 1500; Safeway Stores, Incorporated, 96 NLRB 998 8 See Crown Thug Company, 108 NLRB 1126 • Kroger Company (St. Louis Branch Office), 88 NLRB 194 United States Gypsum Company and Local 160, United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, AFL, Peti- tioner.' Case No. 2O-RC-2813. October 18, 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 Shirley N. Bingham, 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. 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 parties agree that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's mining plant at Sigurd, Utah, including inspectors, but excluding the works manager, the storeroom clerk and other office ' The hearing officer referred to the Board the Petitioner's motion , in which the Emolbyer acquiesced, that the petition be amended by substituting the name of the 'Pel±tloner's Local for that of its International as the real party in interest The motion ls'liereby granted. 114 NLRB No. 88.