The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc.

744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Diego, California, where an object thereof is to force or require the aforesaid Company to recognize or bargain with us as the representative of its employees, or to force or require the em- ployees of the aforesaid Company to accept or select us as their collective-bargaining representative. LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF SAN DIEGO, COMPRISING WAITERS AND BAR- TENDERS LOCAL 500 AND COOKS AND WAITRESSES LOCAL 402, AFFILIATED WITH HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EM- PLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNA- TIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- Bi-------------------------------------- (Representatnc) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. and Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO,1 Petitioner The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. and Meat Cutters, Packinghouse & Allied Food Workers, Local Union 433, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 12-RC-1080, 19-RC-1087, IfRC-1102, and 12-RC-1104. August 4, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Frank James Kruzich, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. These cases are hereby consolidated for purposes of decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. Upon the entire record in these cases, 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. 1 The names of the Employer and Petitioner appear as amended at the hearing 132 NLRB No. 47. 6J THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 745 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation 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 in Cases Nos. 12-RC-1102 and 12-RC-1104, herein referred to as the Meat Cutters, seeks to represent separate units of meat department employees at each of the Employer's stores in Cocoa and Titusville, Florida. The Petitioner in Cases Nos. 12-RC-1080 and 12-RC-1087, herein referred to as the Retail Clerks, seeks to repre- sent separate units of all the employees at the same stores except those in the meat departments. While agreeing that each store constitutes a separate appropriate unit, the Employer contends that all employees in each store should be included in a single overall unit. There is no bargaining history affecting any of the employees involved herein. The Board finds overall units appropriate in stores of this kind where no union seeks to represent the meat department separately,' but where, as here, one union seeks a storewide unit excluding the meat department, and another union seeks a meat department unit, the Board finds such separate units appropriate .3 Accordingly, we find that the following units of employees in each of the Employer's stores in Cocoa and Titusville, Florida, excluding from each unit store managers, assistant managers, produce managers, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, are appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : (a) All employees 4 in the grocery and produce departments, in- cluding checkers, dairy-coffee employees, bag boys, porters, and all regular part-time employees 5 in these departments, but excluding all meat department employees. (b) All employees in the meat department and cutting room, who are engaged in the receiving, handling, cutting, selling, processing, wrapping, pricing, or displaying of meat, poultry, lunch meat, sausage, or fish, fresh, frozen, or smoked, and the performance of all work inci- dental thereto, but excluding meat department managers.6 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2 Schaeffers Prospect IGA Store, 124 NLRB 1433 3 Weis Markets, Inc, 116 NLRB 1993 6 The Retail Clerks would include head cashiers , who are also sometimes called office workers , while the Employer would exclude them as supervisors . The record shows that Virginia Love, the head cashier at the Cocoa store, exercises supervisory authority and we, therefore, exclude her from both units The record also shows that Morlynn Spangler, the head cashier at the Titusville store, has no supervisory authority and we, therefore, include her in unit ( a) in that store. 5 The Retail Clerks 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 include all regular part-time employees and permit them to vote in their respective units Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc, et al , 124 NLRB 908, 912. 3 The Employer would exclude meat department managers as supervisors , while the Meat Cutters takes no position on this question As the record shows that these in- dividuals exercise supervisory authority , we exclude them.