Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 181 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN 181
2. By discriminating in regard . to the hire and tenure of employment of
Watkins, Maybon , Snyder, and Ernest J. and Jess Runger, thereby discouraging
membership in, International Association of Machinists , Local Lodge 1491,
Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices , within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interrogating their employees regarding their union sympathies thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , Respondents have engaged in and
are engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH
AMERICA, LOCAL 556, AFL and SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED.
Case No. f1-CD-3O. October 31, 1952
Decision and Determination of Dispute
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, as amended
by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, which provides that
"whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of paragraph 4 (D) of section 8 (b),
the Board.is empowered and directed to hear and determine the dis-
pute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen. . . ."
On May 19, 1952, Safeway Stores, Incorporated, herein called the
Company, filed with the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Re-
gion a charge against Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Work-
men of North America, Local 556, AFL, herein called Meat Cutters,
alleging that it had engaged and was engaging in certain activities
proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the amended Act. It was al-
leged, in substance, that the Meat Cutters had induced and encouraged
employees of the Company in the course of their employment to en-
gage in a strike or concerted refusal to work with an object of forcing
or requiring the Company to assign particular work to employees who
are members of the Meat Cutters rather than to employees who are
members of Retail Clerks International Association, AFL, Local 899,
herein called the Clerks.
Pursuant to Section 102.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the charge and pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice to all the parties.
Thereafter, a hearing was held before Nathan R. Berke, hearing offi-
cer, on June 17, 18, and 19, 1952. The Clerks was permitted to inter-
101 NLRB No. 50.
182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vene and to participate fully in the hearing. All parties appeared at
the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.'
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Safeway Stores, Incorporated, is a Maryland corporation, engaged
in the business of processing, distributing, and selling of food, food
products, and allied merchandise. It operates approximately 2,000
retail food outlets in various States of the United States, including
the State of California. In the southern California area , the Com-
pany operates approximately 300 retail stores, and the only store in-
volved in this proceeding is located at Santa Maria, California. The
Board heretofore asserted jurisdiction over the Company.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
Local 556, AFL, and Retail Clerks International Association, AFL,
Local 899, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Facts
The Company operates a retail store at Chapel Street in Santa
Maria, California, where it employs members of the Meat Cutters and
members of the Clerks. It opened this store on April 17, 1952. Be-
fore that date, it operated a similar retail store on Church Street, also
in Santa Maria, which it sold, transferring its operations to the new
location.
Among the food items sold at the old store were precooked luncheon
meats. These were, for the most part, sold in bulk, and to a lesser
extent, in prepackaged form. The bulk luncheon meat was displayed
in a conventional meatcase, and sliced and wrapped to order at the
customer's request. It was handled by meat department employees.
The prepackaged luncheon meat was stocked in an open top cooler
' The request of the Respondent for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and
briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN 183
located in the grocery section. It was handled by food clerks. The
employees in the meat department are members of the Meat Cutters
and the food clerks are members of the Clerks.
On April 17, 1952, when the new store was opened, shortly after
a member of the Meat Cutters had been assigned to display pre-
packaged luncheon meats, he was told by a company official not to
continue with that work, as it would be performed by food clerks.
Somewhat later, representatives of the Meat Cutters, who were at the
opening of the new store, seeing food clerks-members of the Clerks-
handling and displaying the luncheon meats, protested to company
representatives. No further action was taken.
The following day, April 18, at about 8 a. in., the Meat Cutters
advised the Company's manager that unless their members stocked
the luncheon meats, they would refuse to work. The Company did
not accede to this demand. Thereupon, meat department employees,
all of whom were members of the Meat Cutters, left the store. Other
meat department employees, arriving after the initial walkout, joined
them outside the store. They remained away from work until April
22, 1952.2
The Company's operations at the new Chapel Street store, although
for the most part like those at its former store on Church Street,
have certain innovations. Thus, for example, it has eliminated bulk
luncheon meats. All of the luncheon meats are prepackaged off the
premises at the Company's warehouse, and are handled by food clerks,
all of whom are members of the Clerks.
B. Bargaining history
For a number of years, the Meat Cutters and the Clerks have rep-
resented the Company's employees. Both labor organizations have
collective bargaining contracts with the Company.
The Company signed its most recent agreement with the Meat
Cutters on February 2, 1951, to be in effect from November 5, 1950,
through November 5, 1955. That agreement by its terms provides
that the Meat Cutters shall have jurisdiction over all employees and
merchandise as follows :
Handling the tools of the trade such as saws, slicing machines,
knives, etc. ; preparing, packaging, displaying and dispensing
of fresh, chilled frozen meat; fresh, chilled or frozen poultry;
fresh, chilled or frozen fish; fresh, chilled or frozen rabbits;
and all smoked and cured meats in the retail operation.
P On that date, the superior court for Santa Barbara County, California , issued a tempo-
rary restraining order at the Company's request.
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 12, 1952, pursuant to a consent election,3 the Meat Cut-
ters was certified as exclusive bargaining agent in the following unit:
All fabricators, cutters, wrappers, sellers, handlers and mer-
chandisers of meat, fish, rabbits, and poultry, including meat
cashiers and individuals working in meat cutters' departments
who are engaged in handling and selling meats and who may sell
other food products in combination with their regular duties in
meat departments; excluding supervisors as defined by the Act,
office employees, retail clerks, and delicatessen clerks.
The Company signed its most recent agreement with the Clerks on
December 28,1949, to be in effect from January 1, 1950, through April
1, 1951, and from year to year thereafter, unless terminated. On
November 3, 1950, the Employer and the Clerks extended this agree-
ment, as modified, to December 31, 1955, but continued in effect sub-
stantially all the provisions of the original contract, including the
following recognition clause :
The Employer recognizes the Union as the sole and exclu-
sive collective bargaining agent for all employees working in its
retail stores coming under the jurisdiction of the union as granted
by the Retail Clerks International Association.
The constitution of the Clerks' International spells out the juris-
dictional boundaries as covering "all employees of stores, mercan-
tile and mail order establishments, who are actively engaged in
handling or selling merchandise or performing other services inci-
dental thereto."
The Clerks received a union-authorization certificate early in 1952
covering a bargaining unit which included "all retail store em-
ployees," and excluded "meat cutters, meat department wrap-
pers, and meat department cashiers" in addition to the statutory
exclusions.
Agreements as to Jurisdiction
As far back as July 7, 1949, the Meat Cutters and Clerks recognized
the existence of the problem now under consideration. On that day,
their two Internationals executed an agreement which stated :
It is recognized that special problems exist within the opera-
tion of certain present-day grocery stores and super markets;
particularly with respect to the handling and selling of prepack-
aged meats, frozen meats, poultry, fish and in some instances
delicatessen products.
8 Case No . 21-RC-1712.
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN 185
To avoid any future conflict between the two labor organizations,
the agreements specifically provided :
In instances where meat is prepackaged, it is recognized by the
[Clerks] that the selling, cutting, prepackaging and displaying
of this meat comes under the jurisdiction of the [Meat Cutters].
Where similar or like methods of handling frozen meats may
apply, the Meat Cutters shall also have jurisdiction. .. .
Thereafter, on May 22, 1951, cognizant of the underlying problem,
the Meat Cutters and Clerks executed a memorandum in which they
stipulated to a "Meat Cutters ' bargaining unit description to be ac-
cepted for the purpose of National Labor Relations Board elections
to be held in the future in California. . . ." The unit, substan-
tially like the one certified in the consent election of March 12, 1952,
was described as follows :
Included : All fabricators , cutters , wrappers , sellers , handlers
and merchandisers of meat, fish , rabbits, poultry and including
meat cashiers. Excluded: Supervisors as defined by the Act,
office employees , retail clerks and delicatessen clerks other than
individuals working in meat cutters' department where the
delicatessen department is operated in combination with the
meat cutters' department.
This stipulation also provided that this agreement as to the unit
description was not to modify the terms of the July 7, 1949, agreement
between the two Internationals , nor to require any change of affilia-
tion by any of their memberships.
D. Contentions of the parties
Although the Company filed the charge herein, it declared its
neutrality at the hearing and in its brief, stating that it "takes no
position with respect to which of these organizations has the right to
perform the work involved."
The Meat Cutters contends in substance that it has a right to the
work in question, and for that reason urges a determination of dispute
in its favor.
The Clerks contends that the proceeding should be dismissed be-
cause of an agreement that allegedly created machinery for the volun-
tary adjustment of this dispute. Failing that, the Clerks urges that
it is entitled to the disputed work, and asks that a determination be
made accordingly.
E. Applicability of the statute
It is clear from the record that the "dispute" in this proceeding in-
volves efforts by the Meat Cutters to force or require the Company to
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assign the work of displaying and selling prepackaged luncheon meats
to employees who are members of the Meat Cutters and covered by
its existing contract, although the work was assigned to and being
done by employees who are members of the Clerks. Accordingly, we
find that this is a dispute within the meaning of Sections 8 (b) (4)
(D) and 10 (k) and is therefore properly before us for determination.
F. The Clerks' contention as to the alleged agreement for the volun-
tary adjustment of the dispute
The Clerks urges the dismissal of this proceeding on the ground that
the July 7, 1949, agreement between the two Internationals and the
May 22,1951, memorandum containing the unit stipulation constitute
an agreed-upon method for voluntarily adjusting the dispute. The
Clerks bases its position on the provision in Section 10 (k) which
empowers the Board to hear and determine a dispute such as this
"unless, within ten days after notice that [an 8 (b) (4) (D)] charge
has been filed, the parties to such dispute submit to the Board satis-
factory evidence that they have adjusted, or agreed upon methods for
the voluntary adjustment of the dispute."
We find no merit in this contention. The July 7, 1949, agreement
between the two Internationals, executed long before the dispute in
question arose, clearly proved ineffectual in achieving its stated pur-
pose of eliminating jurisdictional strife between the Meat Cutters
and the Clerks, as the facts of this case make evident. This is also
true of the May 22, 1951, memorandum relied on by the Clerks.
The record shows no effective steps taken by the parties in this case
pursuant to the Internationals' agreement, nor any other means
applied or invoked which could reasonably be considered as a suf-
ficient agreement "upon methods for the voluntary adjustment of
the dispute." Rather, the circumstances as they are revealed in the
record clearly indicate that as of the hearing date the dispute was
wholly unresolved,4 and that the parties to the dispute had reached
no agreement upon methods for its voluntary adjustment, as the
Board has construed that provision of Section 10 (k) of the Act .-5
G. Merits of the dispute
We view the dispute here presented as essentially a disagreement
between two unions over the question of which of the two existing
4 At the hearing , the Meat Cutters opposed the Clerks' motion to dismiss under this
provision of Section 10 (k), indicating the apparent lack of agreement that existed.
5 Uneted Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , et al. (Ora Collard), 98
NLRB 346 ; International Hod Carriers , Building, Common Laborers' Union of America,
Local 231 ( Meddle States Telephone Company ), 91 NLRB 598.
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN 187
bargaining units appropriately includes the work of handling and
displaying prepackaged luncheon meats.6
Employees in the meat department handled and displayed luncheon
meats, as such, at the Company's former location on Church Street,
except that food clerks handled some prepackaged items. At the
new store on Chapel Street, the Company modified its operations by
prepackaging the luncheon meats at the warehouse instead of dis-
playing and handling them in bulk. The Meat Cutters contends
that this modification was insubstantial and had no effect in changing
the essential character of the products in question or their display
and handling. The Meat Cutters relies on its collective bargaining
agreement of February 2, 1951, which was in effect at all times
material here, describing its jurisdiction as embracing "all em-
ployees . . . handling ... preparing, packaging, displaying and
dispensing . . . cured meats." The unit in which the Meat Cutters
was certified on March 12, 1952, included "all fabricators, cutters,
wrappers, sellers, handlers and merchandisers of meat . . . includ-
ing ... individuals working in meat cutters' departments who are
engaged in handling and selling meats. . . ." There was apparently
no exception set forth in either the contract or the unit as to the
kind of meat involved; the language in the contract appears to specify
all the different kinds of meat, including "cured" meats, and the unit
description uses the term "meat" without suggesting any exception.
The Clerks relies, inter alia, on the recognition clause in its con-
tract. This clause is general in nature, simply referring to "the
jurisdiction of the Union as granted by the Retail Clerks International
Association." The constitution of the Clerks' International defines
such jurisdiction in broad terms as covering "all employees of stores,
mercantile and mail order establishments, who are actively engaged
in handling or selling merchandise or performing other services
incidental thereto." The Clerks also relies on the fact that food
clerks at the old store at times handled and displayed prepackaged
items, urging that a valid distinction exists between bulk luncheon
meats and prepackaged luncheon meats.
We have carefully considered the facts in this case and the con-
tentions of the parties, including reasons given and evidence presented
in support of the jurisdictional claim of each Union, in addition to
those specifically adverted to here. It is our opinion that the handling
and display of prepackaged luncheon meats at the Company's present
location is not materially or substantially different from that per-
formed by members of the meat department employees at the old
0Local 2 6, International Fur, and Leather Workers Union ( Winslow Bros. A Smith Co.),
90 NLRB 1372.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
store. A reasonable construction of the pertinent provisions of the
collective bargaining agreement between the Company and the Meat
Cutters, and the unit description in the Board's certification, compels
the conclusion that there is no valid basis for the distinction con-
tended for by the Clerks between bulk and prepackaged luncheon
meats. On the contrary, we believe that the language in these docu-
ments, which we have considered in passing on the issues here, is
sufficiently clear to support the position taken by the Meat Cutters in
this proceeding. This conclusion is further supported by the very
precise terms of the July 7, 1949, agreement between the two Inter-
nationals, where it is stated that "in instances where meat is prepack-
aged, it is recognized by the [Clerks] that the selling, cutting, pre-
packaging and displaying of this meat comes under the jurisdiction
of the [Meat Cutters]." [Emphasis added.]
In view of the foregoing, and upon the record as a whole, we believe
that the employees handling and displaying prepackaged luncheon
meats have interests in working conditions more closely related to
those of the meat department employees than to those of the food
clerks. Accordingly, we find that the disputed work appropriately
is included in the meat department unit presently represented by the
Meat Cutters.
Determination of Dispute,
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of
dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the amended Act:
1. The handling and display of prepackaged luncheon meats at the
Company's store at Chapel Street, Santa Maria, California, is in-
cluded in the meat department employees' unit presently represented
by Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of. North Amer-
ica, AFL, Local 556, and not in the food clerks' unit now represented
by Retail Clerks International Association AFL, Local 899.
2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Deter-
mination of Dispute, Safeway Stores, Incorporated, Amalgamated
Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, Local 556,
and Retail Clerks International Association, AFL, Local 899, shall
each notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in
writing, of the steps it has taken to comply with the terms of this
Decision and Determination of Dispute.
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Determination of Dispute.