The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc.

THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 603 that specified above. Ryan stated at the hearing that the Petitioner, if certified, would not use any IUE facilities or accept any assistance from it in servicing the instant guards' unit. Upon the entire record, we find that no affiliation as proscribed by the statute has been shown. The assistance to the Petitioner by Local 313 has been limited to the use of a meeting hall for several meetings between Ryan and the guards, and permitting the hall to be used as a mailing address on one occasion .3 Assistance of this sort is not, with- out more, indicative of "indirect affiliation" within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act.' Accordingly, and in view of the as- surance of the Petitioner that it will accept no more aid from Local 313, we find that the Petitioner is a labor organization which does not admit to membership, and is not affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization which admits to membership, employees other than guards. 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 stipulated, and we find, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All guards employed by the Employer at its main plant and foundry at Painted Post, New York, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3 Such other assistance as was rendered by Parks and Local 313 to the guards occurred before the Petitioner undertook to organize the guards 4 The Midvale Company, 114 NLRB 372 ; Federal Services, Inc., 115 NLRB 1729. The Magnavox Company, 97 NLRB 1111 , and Mack Manufacturing Corporation, 107 NLRB 209, cited in the Employer's brief are distinguishable on their facts . Unlike the Mack case, there is no evidence in the ease at bar that the guards were solicited or organized by representatives of a nonguard union Nor is there any evidence here of such material assistance as was rendered in the Magnavox cape. Moreover, in the latter case, the Board inferred from its acceptance in the past of assistance from a nonguard union that the petitioner would continue to depend upon the other union. Here, however, such an inference may not be drawn without ignoring the Petitioner 's assurance that it will not accept outside aid. Should the Petitioner , however, accept such aid, the Board may, upon a proper showing, revoke any certification issued to Petitioner in this case . Mack Manu- facturing Corporation, supra. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. and Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-3,909. November 25, 1957 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 Paul L. Harper, hear- 119 NLRB No. 74. 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean]. 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 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) andSection 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks a unit of all full-time and regular part-time grocery department employees at the following stores operated by the Employer : 4912 Broadway NE.; 2806 Broadway NE.; 513 Market Street; 957 N. Central Avenue; 3617 Chapman Highway SW.; 4425 Kingston Pike SW.; and 1822 E. Magnolia Avenue, all located in Knoxville, Tennessee, and the stores located in Alcoa and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, including produce department managers and head cashiers, but excluding meat department employees, professional and technical employees, guards-watchmen, store managers, assistant store managers, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. The Intervenor, Re- tail Clerks International Association, Local Union No. 1557, AFL- CIO, concurs in the Petitioner's unit request. The Employer contends, however, that the unit is inappropriate because it includes the store at Oak Ridge; that produce department managers should be excluded on the ground that they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act; and, that head cashiers should be excluded on the ground that they are either supervisors or office clerical employees. Finally, the Petitioner and the Employer are in disagreement over the unit placement of part-time employees-the Petitioner would include all regular part- time employees in the grocery department while the Employer would include only those part-time employees who work more than 20 hours per week. The Intervenor takes no position with respect to this issue. The stores here sought are located in the city of Knoxville and the communities of Alcoa 1 and Oak Ridge, approximately 15 and 22 miles, respectively, from Knoxville. The record discloses that these stores are under the general area supervision of the Employer's Atlanta, Georgia, unit. Labor relations' policies for all stores are formulated 1 Also referred to in the record as the Maryville store. THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 605 by the Atlanta unit. All stores here sought receive merchandise from a warehouse in Atlanta or from a subwarehouse in Knoxville. Area grocery and meat supervisors are appointed to supervise all these stores. The record further reveals that all stores employ the same classifications of employees and that working conditions, rates of pay, vacations, and insurance plans are the same for all stores involved. The Employer argues that the Oak Ridge store should be excluded from the proposed unit because it is situated near a vital defense installation and because of earlier decisions by the Board. With respect to the first argument, the Employer concedes that no security checks are required of employees and no other cogent reason is advanced for their exclusion. With respect to the second argument, the Employer relies upon the Board's decisions in Cases Nos. 10-RC- 2179 and 10-RC-3845, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. In the former case, the Employer, the Inter- venor, and another labor organization not here involved, stipulated to the appropriateness of a unit of grocery employees at the stores in Knoxville and Maryville (Alcoa), and the Board directed an elec- tion in that unit. None of the parties therein contended for a broader unit and the Board did not decide that a broader unit would be inappropriate. In the latter case, the Employer and a petitioning union stipulated that a unit of meat department employees at the Oak Ridge store was appropriate and the Board directed an election in such a unit. As in the earlier case, none of the parties contended that a broader unit of meat department employees was inappropriate nor did the Board decide such an issue. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Employer's contention that the Oak Ridge store should be excluded from the unit for the reasons it assigns. As all stores in the requested unit are centrally supervised, are subject to centralized labor relations policies, employ the same classifications of employees, offer the same working conditions, rates of pay, vacations, insurance plans, and are located in the Knoxville, Tennessee, metropolitan area, we find that the unit requested by the Petitioner, which includes the Oak Ridge store, is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining? We turn now to a consideration of the unit placement of produce department managers and head cashiers. The Employer contends that the produce department managers should be excluded because they are supervisors and that the head cashiers should be excluded either on the ground that they are supervisors or office clerical employees. The Petitioner and the Intervenor urge their inclusion. 2 See Sparkle Markets Company, 113 NLRB 790. 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Produce department managers usually have between 2 and 3 employees under their direction and are in charge of the produce department for which they order merchandise, price items on display, purchase produce from local markets, and reduce prices on items as necessary. The record discloses that produce department managers have authority to discipline employees in their departments and to regulate the number of hours worked by those employees. In view of the foregoing, and the entire record, we find that produce depart- ment managers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.' We shall therefore exclude them from the unit. The head cashiers spend approximately 80 to 90 percent of their time -in the offices of the stores performing such duties as handling and balancing cash receipts, preparing payroll records, making bank deposits, and satisfying purchase vouchers. The balance of their time is spent relieving checkers on the checking line. At stores which do not employ head cashiers, checkers, who are concededly included in the proposed unit, perform the functions of head cashiers. In the course of their duties, head cashiers tally cash receipts turned in by the checkers. Where discrepancies are detected, the head cashiers report them to the store managers with a recommendation as to what action should be taken. While these recommendations are accorded weight by the store managers, it appears that the weight accorded them is the same as that accorded to recommendations of other employ- ees who detect and report infractions of company rules. Moreover, while head cashiers may grant time off to employees, this is done only in rare instances when the store manager or assistant manager is off duty and an emergency illness or death in a family require employees to absent themselves from work. In view of the foregoing, and the entire record before us, we find that the head cashiers are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We do find, however, that the head cashiers, because of their duties, are essentially office clerical employees.4 As the Petitioner seeks to include office clericals in the requested unit, and as no union seeks to represent head cashiers separately, we shall, in accordance with our usual policy of including both selling and nonselling employees in retail store units, include the head cashiers 5 The Petitioner urges that all regular part-time grocery department employees should be included in the unit. The Employer contends a Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 117 NLRB 554. 4 Ibid. s E. g., Sears Roebuck d Company, 112 NLRB 559, 561. The cases cited in the Em- ployer's brief involving head cashiers at other stores of the Employer, and which are cited to support the Employer 's contention that head cashiers should be excluded as office clericals from the unit requested herein , are inapposite. In those cases, the unions in- volved did not seek to represent office clerical employees in grocery or meat department units at the Employer 's stores. THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 607 that only those regular part-time employees who work 20 hours or'iiore per week should be included. At the outset of the hearing, the parties agreed that only those regular part-time employees who work 20 hours or more per week during the eligibility period customarily established by the Board-should be included. Later at the hearing, the Petitioner altered this unit contention by stating that only those regular part-time employees should be included whose average hours per week were 20 or more for the last year or from the beginning date of their employ- ment or who have worked an average of 20 hours per week from the week they were first scheduled for 20 hours or more per week, which- ever is less. Subsequent to the hearing, the Petitioner filed with the Board a motion to amend the petition so as to provide that all regular part-time employees in the grocery department be permitted to vote. According to the Petitioner, it is unwilling to include only those part- time employees who regularly work 20 hours or more per week because regular part-time employees who fulfilled this requirement for the last preceding year or since the date of their employment might be disenfranchised if they failed to work 20 hours or more per week during the eligibility period normally established by the Board. In previous cases involving this Employer and the Intervenor and similar unit requests, the Board has accepted stipulations of the parties to include regular part-time employees who work 20 hours or more per week in the requested units.' Unlike those cases, the. parties herein are in disagreement as to the unit placement of regular part- time employees and the record lacks evidence to establish whether the criteria advanced by the parties will reasonably insure that all regular part-tine employees with sufficient interest in the determination of a bargaining representative will have an opportunity to register their choice. Under the circumstances, we shall follow our usual practice of including all regular part-time employees in the unit. Accordingly, we find that all full-time and regular part-time grocery department employees at the Employer's stores at 4912 Broadway NE., 2860 Broadway NE., 513 Market Street, 957 N. Central Avenue, 3617 Chapman Highway SW., 4425 Kingston Pilze SW., and 1822 E. Magnolia Avenue all located in Knoxville, Tennessee, and the stores located in Alcoa and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, including head cashiers, but excluding produce department managers, meat department em- ployees, professional. and technical employees, guards-watchmen, store managers, assistant store managers, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 6 E. g., The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 118 NLRB 1276.