Eisner Grocery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1614 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
times since have been, the exclusive representatives within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L. and
Lodge 1898 of District 38 of the International Association of Machinists, as the
Exclusive bargaining representatives of the employees in the appropriate unit,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the m,ing of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
EISNER GROCERY COMPANY and LOCAL UNION No. 1025, RETAIL CLERKS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, A. F. L., PETITIONER. Case No. 13-
RC-1613. April 20,1951
Decision and Order
On November 29, 1950, pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region among the employees in the stipulated appropriate unit.
Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished
the parties, showing that of approximately 64 eligible voters, 63 cast
valid ballots, of which 24 were for the Petitioner, and 38 were against
the Petitioner. There was 1 challenged ballot.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely 1 objections to the conduct
of the election, and to conduct affecting the results of the election,
alleging inter alia that the Employer interfered with the election by
granting wage increases and other benefits to its employees after the
Petitioner had claimed representation rights. As the challenged bal-
lot was insufficient to affect the results of the election, the Regional
Director thereupon, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations, conducted an investigation and issued and duly served upon
the parties his report on objections, finding merit in the foregoing
cbjection, and recommending that the election be set aside.2 There-
1 In his report on objections, the Regional Director stated that the Petitioner's
objections were filed on December 7, 1950. The record establishes, however, that such
objections were in fact filed on December 4, 1950. Accordingly, we find without merit
the Employer's contention that the Petitioner's objections were not timely filed.
2 The Petitioner also objected on various other grounds to the conduct of the election,
and to conduct affecting the results of the election. The Regional Director recommended
that these objections be overruled. In the absence of exceptions thereto, we hereby
adopt the Regional Director's recommendation and overrule these objections.
93 NLRB No. 273.
EISNER GROCERY COMPANY 1615
after, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
report, and a supporting brief.
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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, aticl Styles].
The facts as found by the Regional Director are not substantially
disputed. In the fall of each year since 1945, the Employer has fol-
lowed the practice of giving unannounced wage increases to the em-
ployees of its Danville, Illinois, stores, the employees sought by the
Petitioner herein. The last two previous increases' of this kind were
given on November 27, 1948, and December 17, 1949. Beginning in
September 1950, and continuing through November 1950, the Em-
ployer granted general wage increases to its employees located in
cities other than Danville; no labor organization was then seeking to
represent such other employees. About November 18, 1950, approxi-
mately 2 weeks after the election stipulation had been executed, and
less than 2 weeks before the date set for the election, the Employer
granted a general wage increase to the employees in the unit sought
by the Petitioner.
We do not agree with the Regional Director that the foregoing wage
increase, standing alone, constitutes sufficient, grounds to warrant
setting the election aside. In a similar case, the Board has declined
to set aside an election on the basis of a wage increase granted in con-
formity with the employer's past practice, when the employees in-
volved might normally have anticipated such an increase, and when
the relationship between the increase and the election was no more
than temporal coincidence.3 As the increase herein was granted in
accord with the Employer's past practice, at a time when the employees
involved might normally have expected' such an increase, and as the
Employer was during this same period increasing the wage rates of
employees not involved in representation proceeding,' we believe that
the principles set forth in the United Screw & Bolt case are controlling
here. Accordingly, we find this objection to be without merit, and it
is hereby overruled.
As we have overruled the Petitioner's objections, and as the tally of
ballots shows that no collective bargaining representative has been
chosen, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
United Screw & Bolt Corporattion, 91 NLRB 156
4 See Lane Drug Stores, Incorporated, 88 NLRB 584 ; Volney Felt Mills, Inc, 70
NLRB 908.