King Jack's Foodarama

1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Because, as I find, Respondent's 1956 contract was not a bar to the election, and District 50 was under no obligation to name Respondent in its representation peti- tion as an organization seeking to represent Card's employees, it follows that the election was valid, and from this, that Respondent's claim of invalidity is not a defense to its picketing of Card's jobsite at Pinconning, Michigan, beginning in June 1962. Respondent, an uncertified labor organization, in picketing Card's jobsite within a year of a valid election and after District 50 had been certified, did so for the object of forcing or requiring Card to recognize and bargain with it as the repre- sentative of Card's employees, in violation of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with the operations of the employer as set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion that I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bernard Card & Sons, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent and Intervenor are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing Bernard Card & Sons, Inc., since June 4, 1962, with an object of forcing and requiring Card to recognize and bargain collectively with Respondent, notwithstanding that Respondent was not then certified as the representative of Card's employees, without a petition being filed under Section 9(c) of the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (A) and (B) of the Act. 4. By inducing and encouraging employees of Card at its Pinconning, Michigan, jobsite not to perform services at such site, with an object of forcing or requiring Card to recognize or bargain with Respondent, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (C) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Great Leopard Market Corporation , Inc., d/b/a King Jack's Foodarama and Amalgamated Food Employees Union, Local 196, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO. Case No. A0-49. February 7, 1963 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed by Amalgamated Food Employees Union, Local 196, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Petitioner, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Section 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. On January 16, 1963, Bennet F. Schauflier, Regional Director for the Fourth Region of the 140 NLRB No. 104. LOCAL 1098, INT'L HOD CARRIERS , BUILDING, ETC. 1155 National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Regional Director, filed a motion to intervene setting forth the jurisdictional facts devel- oped in his investigation of the unfair labor practice charges filed on December 18, 1962, by the Petitioner against the Employer in Case No. 4-CA-2814. The motion of the Regional Director to intervene is hereby granted. In pertinent part, the Petition and Intervention show as follows: 1. Great Leopard Market Corporation, Inc., d/b/a King Jack's Foodarama, herein called the Employer , operates a retail grocery busi- ness at 543 Penn Street, Delaware County, Chester, Pennsylvania, where Burt's Pennsylvania, Inc., is a, tenant. Big C Shopping Center, Inc., is the owner of the aforesaid premises. 2. The Petitioner, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, is a party defendant to an injunction action in Equity, in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, as No. 24 of the 1963 term of said court instituted by the Employer , by Burt's Pennsylvania , Inc., and by Big C Shopping Center, Inc. The injunction action seeks to enjoin the Petitioner from picketing the premises at 543 Penn Street, and to secure damages arising from said picketing. 3. The Petitioner commenced picketing on December 28, 1962, as a result of a primary strike in progress against the Employer. The Petitioner alleges that the strike and picketing arose from the Em- ployer's unfair labor practices which are the subject of the aforemen- tioned charges in Case No. 4-CA-2814 alleging violations of Section 8(a) (1), (3),and (5) oftheAct. 4. The court fixed January 7, 1963, as a date for hearing on the ap- plication fora preliminary injunction. 5. The Employer, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in the retail grocery business at 537-543 Penn Street, Delaware County, Chester, Pennsylvania. During the calendar year ending December 31, 1962, the Employer made sales of groceries, fruits, vegetables, and meats in excess of $500,000. During that same period, the Employer purchased merchandise valued in excess of $50,000 which was shipped to it from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 6. There have been no findings made by any court or agency respect- ing the aforesaid commerce data. 7. No response as provided by the Board 's Rules and Regulations has been filed by the Employer. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that : 1. The Employer is a retail enterprise engaged in the grocery busi- ness in Chester, Pennsylvania. 2. During the calendar year of 1962, the Employer did a gross vol- ume of business in excess of $500 ,000 and made purchases of merchan- GS1-492-63-vol 140 74 1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dise valued in excess of $50,000 which it received directly from outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 3. The Board's current standard for asserting jurisdiction over re- tail enterprises within its statutory jurisdiction is an annual gross volume of business of at least $500,000. Carolina Supplies and Ce- ment Co., 122 NLRB 88, 89. The Employer's out-of-State purchases, constituting direct inflow under the Board's decision in Siemons Mail- ing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85, bring its operations within the Board's statutory jurisdiction while its gross volume of business meets the dol- lar volume test in the Board's standard for asserting jurisdiction over retail enterprises. Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the facts here present, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 0, and 10 of the Act. Local 525, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and E. A. Weinel. Case No. 14-CD-98. February 7, 1963 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On June 20, 1960, the Board issued a Decision and Determination of Dispute (127 NLRB 1377), following a hearing held pursuant to notice issued under Section 10 (k) of the Act. The hearing was conducted in conformity with the Board's then current interpretation of Section 10(k), and was based on the Company's charge that the Respondent Union had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. In its Determination of Dispute the Board in substance determined that the Respondent was not lawfully entitled to force the Company to assign the disputed work to its members. Thereafter the Respondent refused to accept the Determination of Dispute, and the complaint was accordingly issued, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D). On October 26,1960, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his Intermediate Report, sustaining the complaint. The Respondent duly filed exceptions thereto and a supporting brief. On January 9, 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in the case of N.L.R.B. v. Radio d Television Broadcast Engineers Union Local 1212, I.B.E.W., AFL-CIO (CBS). 364 U.S. 573, in substance holding that a Determination of Dispute such as had been issued in this case was not responsive to the statutory mandate of 140 NLRB No. 100.