Fulton Markets, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 2, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 3 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

FULTON MARKETS,, INCORPORATED 3
production departments of the Employer's operations, and as such
do not enjoy a separate community of interests sufficient to warrant
their severance from the long-established unit in which they have
been included. It is true, as the Petitioner asserts, that the separate
supervision and seniority indicate some difference between the in-
terests of the feed mill and those of the warehouse employees. These
elements, however, are more than offset by the considerable inter-
change between, and duplication of categories of employees in, the
two groups, their close proximity to one another, the similarity in the
character of their work generally, and the complete integration of
the Employer's operations. In these circumstances, and particularly
in view of the bargaining history on amore inclusive basis, we find
that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate for collective
bargaining purposes.3
We also find no merit in the Petitioner's further contention that
because there is a separate bargaining unit in the Employer's bakery,
a pattern of small units may be established among the other employees.
Apart from the fact that the record is silent as to the skills and work-
ing conditions of the bakery employees, their unit is part of the his-
torically established bargaining pattern.
Having found that the the unit requested is inappropriate, we shall
dismiss the petition.
Order
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
8 Miller and Rhoads, Incorporated, 86 NLRB 625.
FULTON MARKETS , INCORPORATED and LOCAL 371, AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 1-RC-19411. February 0, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Torbert H. MacDonald, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reyn-
olds].
93 NLRB No. 1.
9 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion 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 seeks to represent a unit of all retail store em-
ployees, including grocery department managers, but excluding ware-
house employees, office and clerical employees, district managers, meat
department managers, and other supervisors. The Employer agrees
that the proposed unit is appropriate, except that it would include
warehouse and office employees, and meat department managers.
The Employer operates approximately 40 retail food stores within
a 30-mile radius of Waterbury, Connecticut. All stores are supplied
from a central warehouse located in Waterbury. Warehouse em-
ployees principally receive, unload, and store incoming bulk ship-
ments; and fill and deliver orders to the retail stores. A small office'
clerical staff located in the warehouse processes the orders from the
stores, checks the store records, and performs other clerical duties.
Except in the event of an emergency, there is no interchange of ware-
house and store employees. There is no history of bargaining for
any of the Employer's employees.
The Employer contends that all its employees, both in the stores
and in the warehouse (excluding only supervisors) should be in a
single unit, because of a community of interest among all such em-
ployees, deriving from a common pay basis, and similar vacation,
insurance, and bonus benefits. In the Morgan Bros. Co. case,l the.
Board rejected a similar argument and found that a unit of retail
sales personnel in a chain of food stores, excluding warehouse and
office employees, may be appropriate. We make a similar finding in
this case.
As stated above, the Petitioner would include grocery department
managers, but exclude meat department managers. The Employer
would include both. The two sets of managers have equal authority;
neither is superior to the other. Neither has the power to change or
effectively recommend a change in the status of subordinates. It is.
agreed that the actual supervision of store employees is exercised
by district managers. The sole basis for the Petitioner's desire to
exclude meat department managers is that the latter receive a per-
centage of the profits of these departments with a guaranteed hourly
1 77 NLRB 1440 ; Eisner Grocery Company, 72 NLRB 721.
STOW AND DAVIS FURNITURE CO. 5
-wage, whereas the grocery department managers receive an hourly
-wage, plus a percentage of increased sales . As the status of the meat
department managers is like that of the grocery department managers,
we shall treat them alike and include both in the unit. The fact that
they are paid on a somewhat different basis is not sufficient in itself
'to justify different unit treatment for them.2
We find that all employees in the retail stores of Fulton Markets,
Incorporated , Waterbury , Connecticut , including grocery and meat
department managers, but excluding office and clerical employees,
warehouse employees , district managers, other supervisors , and guards
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
2 Waterman Dock Company , Inc., 89 NLRB 452.
STOW AND DAVIS FURNITURE CO. and UNITED FURNITURE, WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-10.148. February 5, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
On December 5, 1950, the Regional Director of the Seventh Region
held an election among the Employer's employees in a unit found
appropriate in a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on November 15,1950? At the close of the election, the parties
were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that out of ap-
proximately 38 eligible voters, 19 voted for and 11 against the Peti-
tioner, and that 8 of the ballots cast were challenged.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient, if counted, to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director caused an investigation
to be made of the challenged ballots and on December 27, 1950, issued
his report. The Regional Director found that six of the challenges
were made by the Petitioner on the alleged grounds that five 2 of the
voters were supervisors and that one S was a part-time office janitress.
The Board agent challenged two 4 of the ballots on the ground that the
names of those who cast these ballots were not on the eligibility list.
Stow and Davis Furniture Co., 92 NLRB 80.
Clarence Hatch, Jr., Joseph Uzarski , Herman Sneden, Morey Raby, and John
Stachowia'k.
$ Ethel Conrad.
Walter Ampulski and Wilber Smith.
93 NLRB No. 7.