The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Inc.

342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not select any of the labor organizations involved herein, and a majority in voting group (2) votes for the Joint Petitioners or the. Grain Millers,6 the latter group shall constitute an appropriate unit, and may be represented by that labor organization. The Regional Director is instructed to issue the appropriate certification or certi- fications in accordance with the outcome of the elections.? [The Board dismissed the petition in. Case No. 36-RC-1502.] [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] O As indicated above, the Meat Cutters does not wish to represent a separate unit of truckdrivers. 'For the reasons indicated by the majority in Waikiki Biltmore, Inc., d/b/a The Waikiki Biltmore Hotel, 127 NLRB 82, we have not provided for pooling of the votes in the elections directed herein. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company , Inc. and Local No. 442, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-4610. July 27, 1960 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 Lovic A. Brooks, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error 1 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members' Bean and Fanning]. 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. I We believe it would have been better practice for a . different hearing officer , to have been, assigned to this case, as the 'hearing officer had also acted as counsel for the General Counsel in a related case . However, the failure of the hearing officer to disqualify him self, in response to a motion by the Petitioner , did not in itself, constitute prejudicial error, and , there is no showing that the Petitioner was in fact prejudiced by the conduct of the hearing officer . See International Longshoremen's - and Warehousemen's Union, Local 8, et al. (General Ore, Inc.), 124 NLRB 620. sThe Employer 's motion that the Board take official notice of Case No. 10-'CA-4254, a related case now before a Trial Examiner pending issuance of his Intermediate Report,' is denied , Although the Board may take official notice of its own proceedings, there is no showing that the record In that case contains anything relevant to the issues herein which is not in the instant record. The Employer's posthearing motion to reopen the record is denied because it lacks sufficient specificity to establish that a further hearing is -required - with respect to the changes which have assertedlytaken place since the hearing. 128 NLRB No. 22. THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 343 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation 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 iseeks a multistore unit of all full-time and regular part-time meat department employees at the stores of the Employer located in Augusta, Georgia, at 1024 Greene Street, 464 Greene Street, and 1713 Walton Way, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, meat market managers,' guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer is in basic agree- ment with the Petitioner, except that it contends that only separate single store units are appropriate. The three stores here sought were, at the time of the hearing, all the stores of the Employer in the Augusta, Georgia, metropolitan area. They are a part of the Employer's Atlanta unit, which consists of some 95 stores. Personnel policies for all stores are uniform and are formu- lated by the Atlanta unit. The meat superintendent in the Atlanta unit has under him a number of area meat isupervisors who oversee the meat departments of stores in their territory. There is an area meat supervisor located in Augusta who oversees some 15 stores, which are at varying distances from Augusta, ranging from approximately 25 miles to approximately 125 miles. Although there are some transfers of meat department employees from stores in Augusta to other stores under the area meat supervisor, transfers between stores in Augusta are much more frequent. All stores under the area meat supervisor, in- cluding those in the requested unit, are centrally supervised, are sub- ject to centralized labor relations policies, employ corresponding classifications of employees, and offer the same working conditions, rates of pay, vacations, and insurance plans. As the Board has held, absent unusual circumstances, the appropri- ate unit for retail chain store employees should be all employees within the categories sought who work "within the Employer's administrative division or geographical area," 4 and, as there are no unusual circum- stances here, we find no merit in the Employer's contention that only single-store units are appropriate. With respect to the scope of the appropriate multistore unit the record, as set forth above, shows that transfers within the requested unit are more frequent than transfers between stores in that unit and stores outside that unit, and further shows that the stores in the requested unit are all located in the Au- gusta, Georgia, metropolitan area, in close proximity to each other, whereas the Employer's other stores are located at substantial dis- tances therefrom. Although the employees at all the stores under the area meat supervisor have interests in common, and might therefore constitute an appropriate unit, no labor organization seeks such a unit. J The Petitioner amended its petition at the hearing to exclude meat market managers. 4 Daw Drug Co., lee , 127 NLRB 1316. 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In these circumstances we find that the employees in the stores in the geographical area comprising the Augusta, Georgia, metropolitan area,' have a substantial community of interest sufficient to warrant their establishment as a separate unit, and that such an area unit, rather than a unit of the stores in some larger administrative division or geographical area, therefore constitutes the appropriate unit in this case.° At the outset of the hearing, the parties were in disagreement as to the placement of meat market managers, the Petitioner contending they were not supervisors and should be included with other meat department employees and the Employer contending they were super- visors who should be excluded. While the Petitioner later took the position that they should be excluded because their interests were more closely allied with management and different from other meat department employees, it nevertheless continued to assert that they were not supervisors. It is clear from the record that the meat mar- ket managers responsibly direct meat department employees in the performance of their duties and have the power to discipline em- ployees for breach of the Employer's rules pertaining to work of the employees. Accordingly, we find that they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we therefore exclude them from the unit. The Petitioner urges that all regular part-time meat department employees should be included in the unit. The Employer contends that only those regular part-time employees who work 20 hours or more per week should be included and that part-time employees work- ing less than 20 hours per week are in fact casuals. As the parties herein are in disagreement as to the placement of regular part-time employees, it appears that regular part-time employees may at times work less than 20 hours per week, and the record lacks evidence to establish that the criteria advanced by the Employer will reasonably insure that all regular part-time employees with sufficient interest in the determination of a bargaining representative will have an opportunity to register their choice, we shall, in accord with estab- lished Board practice where the parties are not in agreement, include all regular part-time employees in the unit? 5It may be, as suggested by the Employer's posthearing motion to reopen the record (footnote 2, supra ) and the Petitioner 's response , that a fourth store has been opened by the Employer in the Augusta metropolitan area. As such a store would belong in the unit, an election , including such store, if it has been opened, would in that event be contingent on Petitioner's submission of an adequate showing of interest in such unit. 6 ACF-Wrigley Stores, Inc., 124 NLRB 200; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 119 NLRB 603. We find, contrary to the Employer' s contention , that The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Case No. 10-RC-4450, unpublished , is not determinative of the Instant case. In that case the Petitioner sought not only the stores in Augusta but two additional stores in Aiken, South Carolina , a considerable distance from Augusta, Georgia. Inasmuch as the Petitioner there did not seek to represent any unit in an administrative division or geographic area, the petition was dismissed . Here, however, as found above, the unit encompasses all the Employer 's stores in a geographic area. 7 The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 119 NLRB 603, 606-607. AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY 345 In view of the foregoing, we find that all full-time and regular part-time meat department employees at the Employer's Augusta, Georgia, stores, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, meat market managers, and 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.] American District Telegraph Company and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case No. 1-RC-5916. July 28, 1960 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 Norman D. Schwartz, 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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. 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 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 a single unit of plant department employ- ees of the Employer at its Somerville, Massachusetts, location, and the employees of Bankers' Electric Protective Service, hereinafter called Bankers. The Employer contends that the two companies are separate corporate entities and should not be considered as a single employer for unit purposes. The record shows that both companies are Massachusetts corporations which, in turn, are wholly owned by American District Telegraph Company, a New Jersey corporation. They share common management and officers; they work out of the same location, perform similar services, and utilize the employees of both interchangeably. Under these facts we find that both corpo- rations constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 'For reasons stated below the Employer's motion to dismiss is denied. 128 NLRB No. 42.