Chestnutt's Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 5, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 490 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CHESTNIITr'S STORES, INC., OF LuFKIN, TExAS 1 and LOCAL 408,
AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH
AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-986. August 5,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles Y. Latimer, 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 :
The Employer is a Texas corporation with its principal office and
only place of business located in Lufkin, Texas. It is engaged in
operating a retail food market under the name, "Q. P. Store in Lufkin,"
a registered assumed name. During the year preceding the date of the
hearing the Employer made purchases in excess of $233,000, none of
which was made from sources outside the State of Texas. During the
same period the Employer's sales, amounting to approximately
$287,000, were all made within the State of Texas.
The record shows that the Employer's president is also the president
of another retail food market, Q. P. Stores, Inc., of Bay City, Texas,
and of Grocers Supply Company, Inc., of Houston, Texas. The
Employer purchases about one-half of its total purchases from this
latter company. The three companies also have the same vice presi-
dent and secretary-treasurer. The president of the Employer owns
52 percent of its stock, 72 percent of the stock of Grocers Supply
Company, and 251/2 percent of the stock of Q. P. Stores. The purchases
and sales of Grocers Supply Company are in excess of approximately
$10,000,000. All of its sales are made locally. Approximately 75
percent of its purchases are made, directly or indirectly, from sources
outside the State of Texas. These purchases include products such
as Post Toasties, Quaker Oats, and various canned products sold
throughout the United States.
From the foregoing it is clear that the Employer, considered as a
separate and independent enterprise, is engaged in a retail business
essentially local in nature over which the Board would not normally
assert jurisdiction 2 As the additional evidence in the record is in-
sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the Employer, in fact, func-
' As amended at the hearing.
3 Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638.
100 NLRB No. 77.
THE ELYRIA TELEPHONE COMPANY 491
tions as an integrated part of a larger, interstate enterprise consisting
of several companies, all of which constitute a single employer, we find
that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
in this case.3
Order
IT IS HEREBY oRDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
S Toledo Service Parking Company, 96 NLRB 268.
THE ELYRIA TELEPHONE COMPANY and COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC 1268. August 5,
1959
Supplemental Decision , Amended Description of Unit, and
Certification of Representatives
On September 13,1951, the Board issued its Decision and Direction
of Election herein 1 in a unit composed generally of all the Employer's
employees, excluding, among others, the service assistants, who were
found to be supervisors. On October 2, 1951, the Petitioner filed a
petition for further testimony and reconsideration of the Board's
exclusion of the service assistants. The Employer, by letter of October
8, 1951, objected to the Petitioner's petition. On October 9, 1951, the
Board denied the Petitioner's request without prejudice to the service
assistants voting subject to challenge.
Subsequently, on October 10, 1951, an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Eighth Region among the employees of the Employer in the
unit found appropriate by the Board in its decision. Upon completion
of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally
shows that, of the approximately 110 eligible voters, 98 cast ballots,
of which 60 were cast for the Petitioner, 26 against, and 12 were
challenged.2
On October 12, 1951, the Employer filed an objection to the election
on the grounds that the service assistants, whom the Board had found
to be supervisors, organized and were the leaders of the Petitioner, and
that such conduct by its supervisors interfered with the election.
Thereafter, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on December 10,
ts
196 NLRB 162.
1 The challenged ballots were cast by service assistants.
100 NLRB No. 81.