The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc.

226 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. At the time of the hearing there were 10 rank-and-file employees employed at the France Road yard. At the time of the filing of the petition approximately 3 months earlier, however, there were about 65 employees at the yard. The Employer's testimony reveals that the decline in personnel resulted from the completion of construction con- tracts and that undoubtedly the number of yard employees will again increase when the Employer obtains new contracts. Although there is no certainty as to precisely when the Employer will secure new contracts, we do not believe that the present work force constitutes a :substantial and representative complement of employees. Neverthe- less, as the situation involved herein is quite analogous to those exist- ing in cases involving seasonal operations,' we find that the dismissal of the petition is not warranted. We shall therefore direct the Re- gional Director to conduct the election directed herein at such time in the foreseeable future when, in the opinion of the Regional Di- rector, a substantial and representative complement is employed at the Employer's France Road yard operation. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] supervisory status of R. LeBlanc, the carpenter foreman. The record shows that he was the only carpenter working at the yard at the time of the hearing. It also reveals that upon the hiring of additional carpenters he would have the authority to hire and dis- charge them. In addition, he also has the authority to discharge laborers assigned to work with , or assist, him on occasions . We therefore find that LeBlanc is a supervisor and exclude him from the unit. U Toledo Marine Terminals, 123 NLRB 583 , 585. Unlike the Trammell and Toledo Marine cases, supra, there is insufficient evidence in this record upon which to establish a criterion for eligibility on the basis of past employment with the Employer. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company , Inc.' and Amalgam- ated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 282, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-RC-1093. Febru- ary 13, 1961 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 Frank James Kruzich, hear- ing officer. For the reasons stated below, we overrule the hearing ^oflicer's ruling, made at the hearing, granting the motion of the Retail 'Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, Local 1636, herein re- ferred to as the Retail Clerks, to intervene in this proceeding. 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 name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The Employer refused to stipulate that it was engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. As it is a Maryland corporation doing business in Florida , operates re- 130 NLRB No. 28. THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY 227 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 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 appropriate unit : a. The unit sought by the Retail Clerks The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of meat department em- ployees in the Employer's three stores in Sarasota and Bradenton, Florida. The Retail Clerks seek to represent all employees at the three stores except the meat department employees. There is no bar- gaining history for any of the employees involved herein. At the hearing, the Retail Clerks was permitted to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of its submission of a sufficient number of au- thorization cards to warrant its intervention. As the Retail Clerks' request, however, is for a unit different from that which the Petitioner seeks to represent, it was incumbent upon it to support its motion to intervene with a petitioner's showing of interest? The number of authorization cards which the Retail Clerks submitted was less than 30 percent of the employees in the unit it seeks. The hearing officer's ruling permitting the Retail Clerks to intervene is, therefore, over- ruled, and its motion to intervene in this proceeding is hereby denied, without prejudice to its right to file a petition supported by an ade- quate showing of interest for the unit which it seeks.4 b. The unit sought by the Petitioner The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of meat department em- ployees in the three stores described above. The Employer agrees that a three-store unit is appropriate, but contends that all employees in the three stores should be included. The Retail Clerks stipulated at the hearing that it did not seek to represent the meat department employees. We find no merit in the Employer's contention that only an overall unit of all employees in the three stores is appropriate. In the absence tail grocery stores which have gross sales in excess of $1,000 ,000 per year, and causes to be shipped to Florida from other States annually goods valued at more than $50,000, we find that the Employer meets the Board's jurisdictional standards, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88. a Dtierks Paper Company, 120 NLRB 290. 4 Member Jenkins dissents from this ruling, as the hearing officer erroneously permitted the inter%ention without making known to the Retail Clerks the need for a petitioner's showing Ile would, therefore , in addition to directing an election herein among the meat department employees, direct an election among the employees sought by the Retail Clerks, subject to a determination by the Regional Director as to whether or not the Retail Clerks actually had a timely and adequate showing of interest. 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of a contrary bargaining history or a request by a labor organization for a more comprehensive unit, the Board has recognized the appro- priateness of a separate meat department unit in stores of this kind.' Accordingly, we find a separate meat department unit appropriate in this case. In view of the foregoing, we find that all full-time and regular part-time 5 meat department employees in the Employer's stores in Sarasota and Bradenton, Florida, excluding all other employees, meat department managers, office clerical employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 6 The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., 128 NLRB 342. 9 The Petitioner seeks to include all regular part -time employees , while the Employer would include only those working 20 hours or more a week. In accord with standard Board policy, we shall include all regular part -time employees . Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc, et al., 124 NLRB 908, 911. Labatt Wholesale Grocery Company ' and General Drivers & Helpers Local No. 657, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 23-RC-1614. February 14, 1961 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 C. L. Stephens, 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 Fanning and Kimball]. 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 Employer is engaged in the selling and distribution at whole- sale of dry groceries, frozen foods, and related items from its ware-- I The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing, 130 NLRB No. 26.