195 NLRB 349
B & E Supermart
B & E SUPERMART
349
Willys L. Isaacson and Elaine K. Isaacson , d/b/a B &
E Supermart,
Employer-Petitioner
and
Retail
Clerks Union, Local 201, Retail Clerks Interna-
tional Association, AFL-CIO. Case 36-RM-646
February 10, 1972
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On September 2, 1971, Charles M. Henderson, the
Regional Director for Region 19, issued his Decision
and Order in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
found that the Employer was a successor to the Hudson
Stores Company and that accordingly the existing con-
tract with the Union covering the involved store is a bar
to the instant petition. Thereafter, the Employer filed
a timely request for review of the Regional Director's
Decision on the ground that he departed from officially
reported precedent.
By telegraphic order dated November 2, 1971, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the request
for review. The Employer and the Union each filed
timely briefs on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case
with respect to the issues under review, and makes the
following findings:
Prior to November 30, 1971, the Stephens Street
store involved herein was I of 45 retail grocery stores
owned and operated by Hudson Stores Company,
d/b/a Three-Boys Market (herein called Hudson) in
the State of Oregon. Five of these stores were covered
through voluntary recognition, including Stephens
Street, by a contract between the Roseburg Independ-
ent Grocery Employers Committee (herein called the
Association) and the Union. This contract covering
retail food clerks also included six other stores owned
by members of the Association located in Roseburg and
neighboring towns, became effective on February 1,
1970, and has an expiration date of April 1, 1973.
At some undefined date, Hudson, realizing that the
Stephens Street store was a marginal operation, made
a decision to sell the store, feeling that an independent
operator, unlike a large chain, "could do well." In the
fall of 1970, Isaacson contacted Hudson regarding the
possibility of purchasing one of two stores then availa-
ble for sale. After negotiations regarding the price and
terms of the purchase, a definitive agreement to pur-
chase the Stephens Street store was executed on
November 15, 1970, to be effective November 30, 1970.
Under the terms of the sale, Hudson sold only trade
195 NLRB No. 67
fixtures, equipment, and inventory and the purchaser
assumed no liabilities of Hudson except for the existing
lease on the premises. A representative of Hudson told
Isaacson that he was under no obligation to hire the
store personnel as Hudson would try to absorb them at
its other stores.
Shortly before the transfer of ownership, Hudson
reassigned the store manager and the assistant store
manager to another Hudson store, and on November
30 the other employees were notified that they were
terminated. When Isaacson took over the operation of
the store December 1, 1970, he hired the four clerks
who had been employed by Hudson at the time of the
sale. However, they were told by Isaacson that they
were being hired on a temporary basis in order to evalu-
ate the needs of the new operation and that Hudson
would try to absorb them in its chain.
On December 7 and 22, 1970, respectively, two of
these employees were absorbed by the Hudson chain;
the third was discharged on February 18, 1971, and the
fourth quit in April 1971. Since this latter date, none
of the employees was employed by Hudson at this store
at the time of the sale. Shortly after the sale, Isaacson
leased the meat department facilities to two individuals
who operate their business as a partnership under the
name of Southgate Meat Market, and subsequently
leased a portion of the store to Spudnut Shop which
sells baked goods.
It is clear to us that the Employer did not in fact hire
Hudson's former employees on a permanent basis. In-
deed it appears that the takeover of the store's former
personnel was a temporary stopgap arrangement de-
signed to permit interim operation of the store until the
Employer could make operational changes and recruit
a new permanent complement, which was in fact done
shortly thereafter.
The Employer also changed the hours of operation
and the name of the store from Three-Boys Market to
B & E Supermart. The supervisory, managerial, and
administrative functions
were completely changed
from that of a large multitiered corporation to a small
operation, local in nature. The responsibilities of its
employees, including the ordering of products, were
increased for the sections of the store in which they
worked and substantial changes were made in the
physical appearance, organization, and functional lay-
out of the store.
Under all the circumstances of this case, we find,
contrary to the Regional Director, that the evidence is
insufficient to establish that the Employer is the legal
successor to Hudson's contract for the involved store.
There were a number of significant changes accompan-
ying the transfer, the totality of which indicate a suffi-
cient lack of continuity in the employing entity as to
make inappropriate a finding of successorship.
350
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we conclude that the existing associa-
tionwide contract is no bar to the instant petition and
the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director
for further processing in a manner consistent with this
Decision.
MEMBER JENKINS, concurring:
I concur in the result reached by my colleagues. All
of the economic realities of this situation, particularly
the fact that the store was formerly part of a large chain
with the resources, capabilities, and responsibilities of
a large organization and is now a single-store individual
proprietorship, indicate to me that the employing in-
dustry is not now the same as formerly and that there
is no successorship.