C. & H. Foods, Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 13, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1483 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

C. & H. FOODS, INC. 1483
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Lodge No. 713, International Association of Machinists, A. F. L., is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section (2) (5) of the Act.
2 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Loyal
G. Hutto and Maurice P. Livingston, thereby discouraging membership in the
Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By discharging Loyal G. Hutto and Maurice P. Livingston because they gave
testimony under the Act the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (4) of the Act.
4. 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.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
C. & H. FOODS, INC. ; DIETRICHS MARKET AND FOOD LINES , INC. ; AND
KAISER'S MARKET, PETITIONERS and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1612, AFL. Cases Nos.19-RM-83,19-RM-84,
and 19 RM-85.' October 13, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Albert L. Gese,
hearing 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The three Petitioners, C. & H. Foods, Inc., Dietrich Market and
Food Lines, Inc., and Kaiser's Market, own and operate five retail
grocery stores at Richland and North Richland, Washington. Both
towns are located in a United States reservation devoted to the devel-
opment of atomic energy. The annual purchases of C. & H. Foods,
Inc., are approximately $1,400,000; of Dietrich's Market and Food
Lines, Inc., approximately $750,000; and of Kaiser's Market approxi-
mately $250,000. An estimated 80 percent of these approximate an-
nual purchases, although not shipped directly, originates from points
outside the State. The total annual sales are $1,750,000, $870,000, and
100 NLRB No. 171.
1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
$285,000, respectively, and are all made to local retail customers. The
Board has held that any employer doing business on an atomic energy
reservation is so identified with the Government national defense
program as to warrant the full exercise of the Board's power to assert
jurisdiction.' Accordingly, we find that the three Employers are
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and, that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction
over these Employers.
2. The labor organization involved, Retail Clerks International
Association, Local 1612, AFL, claims to represent certain employees
of the Petitioners.
3. We find that questions affecting commerce exist concerning the
representation of the employees of the three Employers within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioners seek a separate bargaining unit for the employees
of each of the Employers, whereas the Union desires a multiemployer
unit embracing the employees of the three Employers.
The record indicates that there has been some multiemployer bar-
gaining including the petitioning Employers. In 1949 two of the
Petitioners were part of a group of retail employers represented by
Washington State Employer's Association which negotiated a contract
with the Union. Prior to 1951, however, the Association ceased to
represent the group. In 1951 a series of bargaining-meetings, at which
the employers represented themselves, were held with the Union. A
majority of the employers in the area were represented at these meet-
ings from time to time, but not all of them were present at all meetings.
At the conclusion of the series, the large employers in the area
executed individual identical contracts. The same contract was
then presented by the Union to the smaller employers and, after fur-
ther negotiations on an individual basis, many of them executed sepa-
rate, identical contracts. Each of the three Petitioners executed such
a contract. We find that these facts do not establish a pattern of multi-
employer bargaining decisive of the unit question. In view of the
short period of multiemployer bargaining, its extent beyond the em-
ployers here involved, the circumstances under which the 1951 con-
tracts were achieved, and the fact that the Petitioners, by their unit
request, have manifested an intent to pursue individual courses in
their labor relations, we find that separate units, as petitioned for,
limited to the employees of each Petitioner, are appropriate.2 As all
parties appear to be in substantial agreement as to the composition of
the unit, we find appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, separate units com-
1 Harvey Stoller d/b/a Richland Laundry Dry Cleaners, 93 NLRB 680.
See P. B. Ashton Company, et at., 95 NLRB 1286, and Coca Cola Bottling Works Co.,
93 NLRB 1414.
L. ANTONSANTI, INC. 1485
posed of the following employees of each of the three Employers,
C. & H. Foods, Inc., Dietrich Market and Food Lines, Inc., and
Kaiser's Market : All employees of the Employer, excluding the meat
department employees, office and clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined by the Act.
5. There remains for consideration the part-time employees. The
Petitioners object to the inclusion in the unit of all part-time em-
ployees; the Union desires to include all those part-time employees
who work in excess of 4 hours per week. The record shows that all
part-time employees perform duties similar to those of full-time em-
ployees, and share the same supervision and working conditions. Some
part-time employees have worked for their Employer as long as a year.
All work a regular weekly schedule from 5 to 81 hours per week. A
number of the part-time employees are high school students, some of
whom are employed full time during the summer. It has been Board
policy to permit regular part-time employees who work a substantial
amount of time to cast ballots in representative elections, although they
may be high school students.3 As it appears that all part-time em-
ployees, regardless of the number of hours they work, do the same type
of work as full-time employees, are on the regular payroll of the Em-
ployer, and work at regularly assigned hours a substantial amount of
time each week, we shall include them in the bargaining unit and per-
mit them to vote in the representation election.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
s Burrows & Sanborn , Inc., 84 NLRB 304.
L. ANTONSANTI, INC. and UNION INSULAR DE TRABAJADORES DE LA
CONSTRUCCION, FEDERACION LIBRE DE LOs TRABAJADORES DE P. R.
(PtERTo RICO FREE FEDERATION OF LABOR) ,1 PETITIONER . Case No.
?4-RC-423. October 13, 195°2
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 Roy J. Cohen, hearing
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'[Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended in accordance with the request of the
Petitioner which was made subsequent to the hearing and was unopposed by the Employer.'
100 NLRB No. 246.