Super Valu Stores, Inc.

SUPER VALU STORES, INC. Super Valu Stores, Inc., Petitioner and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local Union No. 394' Super Valu Stores, Inc. and Bakery & [Confectionery Workers Local Union 34 , affiliated with the Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union of America,' Petitioner. Cases 18-RM-667 and 18-RC-7884 November 3, 1969 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Under separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held before Charles J Frisch, Hearing Officer. Following the hearing, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D C., pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended. The Employer-Petitioner has filed a brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds- 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3 On May 13, 1969, in Case 18-RM-667, the Regional Director approved a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election, executed by the Employer and the Teamsters a few days earlier, providing for an election among all four bakery department employees at the Employer's new warehouse at Urbandale, Iowa. The election was conducted on May 22, 1969, between 2:45 and 3 p.m. On the same day, however, at 11:07 am , Bakery Workers filed a petition for an election in the same group of bakery department employees. Acting upon instructions of the Regional Director, the Board agent impounded the ballots in the election in Case 18-RM-667, and they remain unopened to date. The Acting Regional Director, on ' Herein called Teamsters 'Herein called Bakery Workers 469 June 9, 1969, issued an order withdrawing approval of the consent election agreement in Case 18-RM-667 and vacating the election On the same day, the two petitions were ordered consolidated for a hearing. which was held onIJune 17, 1969.On July 1, 1969, the Regional Director transferred the consolidated cases to the Board. The Employer contends that the Bakery Workers' petition should be dismissed as a tardy attempt to intervene in Case 18-RM-667, and that the ballots in the May 22 election should be counted, a tally served, and an appropriate certification issued. We find no merit in this contention. Considering the broad authority which the Board has delegated to Regional Directors with regard to representation proceedings,' we do not believe that the Regional Director here committed an abuse of discretion in vacating the May 22 election. Implicit in the Regional Director's authority to approve consent election agreements is his authority to revoke that approval when he determines that changed circumstances, discovered prior to the counting of ballots, warrant such revocation ' We find that the Regional Director's decision to permit intervention in the present proceeding was not arbitrary. Furthermore, in view of our holding that the Regional Director acted within his discretion in vacating the election, we do not agree with the Employer's contention that a "valid" election has been held within the meaning of Section 9(c)(3) of the Act,' thus precluding another election in this unit for 12 months. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The employees in question were hired directly by the Employer for a bakery department which was first established when the Employer moved from a warehouse located in Des Moines to a new warehouse in a nearby suburb, Urbandale. These employees had not worked for the Employer before, nor had the Employer maintained a bakery department in its previous warehouse. Their duties require them to work solely in the bakery department, which is situated in a room inside the warehouse In the remainder of the warehouse, employees, most already represented by the Teamsters, receive and ship merchandise, perform various types of prepackaging, and separate such items as produce into smaller units. There is no interchange of bakery department employees and other warehouse employees. Operations performed 'Sec 101 21, National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedures, Series 8 , as amended See also Sec 102 65(b), Board's Rules and Regulations 'Oroply Corporation, 121 NLRB 1067, 1068 'The provision , in part, states, "No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which , in the preceding 12-month period, a valid election shall have been held " 179 NLRB No. 76 470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by the bakery employees may be summarized as follows A premix substance utilized in baked goods is purchased by the Employer from outside suppliers. It is received by bakery department employees in bags which contain detailed measuring, mixing, and timing instructions. Employees add water and yeast and compound the resultant mixture in a mixing device, utilizing an automatic timer. The dough is then placed on a dolly while the yeast ferments. After the leavening process, the dough is cut and weighed in various sized pieces, depending upon the desired product. It is finally shaped by machine, frozen, boxed, and shipped to supermarkets, where it is later baked and sold by store employees. The bakery employees are directed in their work activities by a foreman who the parties have stipulated is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and who exercises no authority over any other employees in the warehouse. The Employer's bakery department as a whole is under the ultimate supervision of the Employer's chainwide Bakery Production Manager, to whom the foreman of these employees directly reports. The warehouse (operations) superintendent has no responsibility for directing work activities in the bakery department, although he does have the responsibility of assuring that the department's physical facilities are adequate. Fringe benefits and working conditions of the bakery employees vary materially from those of the other warehouse employees. It thus is evident that the Employer's bakery department was established as a well-defined administrative unit at the warehouse to better serve its retail store bakery needs, and that the department was provided with both functional independence and separate supervision to assure efficiency in its operations. In view of the separate community of interests which the bakery department employees share, as discussed above, we find no merit in Teamsters' contention that the bakery department constitutes an accretion to the existing unit represented by Teamsters. On the contrary, we find that the employees in the bakery department constitute a newly established departmental unit which may be separately represented by a labor organization if the employees so desire. Accordingly, we reject the Teamster's contention that the petitions seeking an election among the Employer's bakery department employees are barred by that union's current collective-bargaining agreement. Since we find that bakery department employees constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, we shall direct an election in that unit and include the names of both the Bakery Workers and the Teamsters on the ballot. 5. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All bakery department employees at the Employer's warehouse at Urbandale, Iowa, including mixers, sheeters and packagers, but excluding all other employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election6 omitted from publication.] " ►n order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wvman-Gordon Company, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 18 within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed