Hall'S Super Duper

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 1116 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hall's Super Markets , Inc. d/b/a Hall's Super
Duper and United Food and Commercial Work-
ers International Union, District Union Local
No. 346, AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner., Case 9-
RC-14455
30 September 1986
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
On 24 April 1984 the Regional Director for
Region 9 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he
directed, an election in a unit of meat department
employees, excluding all other employees at the
Employer's Reynoldsburg, Ohio grocery store.
Thereafter in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, the Employer filed a timely request
for review of the Regional Director's decision,
contending that a separate unit of meat department
employees is inappropriate and that the only appro-
priate unit is a storewide unit.
The National Labor Relations Board by tele-
graphic order dated 25 May 1984 granted the Em-
ployer's request for review. Thereafter, both the
Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs in support
of their respective positions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-,
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in-
cluding the parties' briefs, and, for the reasons set
forth below, we find that the unit in which the Re-
gional Director has, directed an election is not ap-
propriate.
In 1978 the Employer purchased a retail grocery
store in Reynoldsburg, Ohio.' At the time the meat
and grocery department employees were represent-
ed for collective-bargaining purposes by two sepa-
rate Unions.2 Upon assuming control, the Employ-
er extended voluntary recognition to both Unions
and this situation continued until the Unions were
decertified in Board-conducted elections held in
late 1981 and early 1982. The Petitioner also pre-
sented evidence that it represented separate units of
meat department employees at other area stores.
On 15 March 1984 the Petitioner filed a petition
for an election seeking to represent the meat de-
i It is a family held business and its officers are Jack Hall , president,
Marilyn Hall, vice president; Joyce Hall, secretary; and David Hall,
treasurer and manager.
2 The Petitioner, which was an affiliated local of the Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, represented the
meat department employees and the Retail Clerks International Union
represented the other store employees
partment employees at the Reynoldsburg store.
The Employer employs approximately 24 employ-
ees at the store, which is divided into produce, gro-
cery, meat, delicatessen/bakery, and dairy depart-
ments. The produce department is located in the
rear of the store and the grocery department is sit-
uated in the central area.
The meat department is located on the west side
of the store and is immediately adjacent to the
delicatessen/bakery department on one side and the
dairy department on the other. It is staffed with a
department head, a meatcutter, and a meatwrapper.
Their duties consist of weighing, cutting, and pack-
ing the meats.3 According to the Employer, since
the 1982 decertification election its meat depart-
ment business has consisted of boxed beef and pre-
packaged products. Approximately three-quarters
of the meat department products are prepackaged
meats and the remaining one-quarter consists of
"boxed beef," which is delivered to the Employer.
The meat department head and meatcutter do not
exercise traditional butchering skills in performing
their duties because these employees merely cut the
delivered meats into smaller portions and trim
away excess fat prior to the meatwrapper's weigh-
ing and wrapping the meat for individual sales,
Less,than 1 percent of the Employer's meat depart-
ment business is run on a cut-to-order basis.
The three meat department employees work ex-
clusively in their assigned department and there is
no evidence of interchange between departments
on any regular basis. However, the record does in-
dicate that it is not uncommon for grocery depart-
ment employees to stock shelves in the meat de-
partment and occasionally meat department em-
ployees are directed to assist in bagging groceries.
In the latter instance, however, such assistance is
required only during the store's busy hours and
when other employees are unavailable.4 With re-
spect to transfers, the record reveals that no em-
ployees have been permanently transferred either
into or out of the meat department.
David Hall manages the store, including order-
ing and purchasing supplies. In addition, all depart-
ments are under the direct control of Hall. He per-
forms the hiring and firing of employees at the
store, determines whether an employee should be
disciplined and prepares employee evaluations. Al-
though Store Assistant Managers Dean Lynde and
Frank Mastella occasionally take corrective meas-
ures regarding minor employee disciplinary prob-
' Cashiers man the cash registers in the front of the store and grocery
employees stock and arrange dry goods in their department
4 The-record does not reflect the frequency of this assistance.
281 NLRB No. 150
HALL'S SUPER DUPER 1117
lems, the record indicates that this responsibility is
usually reserved for Store Manager David Hall.
All employees are extended identical benefits.
For instance, employees receive 1 week vacation
after 1 year, 2 weeks after 5 years, and 3 weeks
after 8 years . Also all prospective employees com-
plete one standard application form and every new
hire is given the same handbook, which describes
the Employer's policies . Every new employee is
under a 30-day probationary period. There is a
lounge in the rear of the store that is shared by
both meat department employees and other em-
ployees for lunch and break periods. Although
every employee receives the same across-the-board
wage increase, the meat department head is paid at
a higher rate than other employees.
On these facts, the Regional Director concluded
that the meat department employees have a suffi-
cient separate community of interest from grocery
employees to warrant their separate representation.
The Regional Director, in making the unit determi-
nation, relied on his findings that meat employees
work in a separate area; that there is little inter-
change between meat employees and other employ-
ees; that meat department employees are not trans-
ferred or promoted from other departments within
the store; that meat employees' job duties, work,
and skills are distinct from those of other employ-
ees; that the meat department head is compensated
at a higher wage rate; that the meat employees had
previously been represented in a separate unit; and
that the Petitioner represents separate units of meat
department employees at the area stores.
Based on our consideration of all the facts, and
contrary to the Regional Director, we find a unit
limited to the Employer's meat department em-
ployees to be inappropriate. In a number of gro-
cery store unit determination cases the Board has
held that meat department employees do not have
a community of interest separate from that of other
store employees. See Ashcraft's Market, 246 NLRB
471 (1979); Great Day, Inc., 248 NLRB 527 (1980);
Yaohan of California, Inc., 252 NLRB 309 (1980).
In Ashcraft's, supra, the Board found that meat de-
partment employees did not possess a separate
community of interest from other employees be-
cause their job functions did not require the exer-
cise of traditional butchering skills; they were sub-
ject to the same uniform wage system; they were
commonly supervised; and they interchanged with
other store employees. The Board emphasized the
fact that the meat department employees did not
use traditional meatcutting skills, since two-thirds
of the meat sold at the Employer's facility was pre-
packaged and the only task involved was stocking
the product on shelves. The remaining one-third of
the- meat sold in Ashcraft's was boxed beef, which
required the meat employees only to trim and cut
the meat into smaller pieces.
As our recitation of the facts in this case indi-
cates, the percentage of boxed beef and prepack-
aged beef here is also such that employees are not
called upon to use traditional meatcutting skills. As
noted, less than 1 percent of the Employer's meat
department business involves orders that are special
cut. The employees principally shelve the prepack-
aged products and perform the comparatively
simple tasks of trimming and cutting boxed beef
into smaller portions for sale.5
Other factors also reveal a community of interest
between the Employer's meat department and
other store employees. These employees have the
same benefits and, except for the head meatcutter,
comparable wages. Similarly, the Employer's em-
ployees share common facilities and common su-
pervision.6
To be sure, two of the cases we find controlling
hereAshcraft's and Great Day-relied in part on a
showing of substantial interchange in finding no
separate community of interest for the meat depart-
ment employees. Although that is relevant to any
community of interest determination, we are not
persuaded that it is dispositive.7 We note that in
Yaohan, the Board had found only a storewide
unit, including meat department employees, appro-
priate, despite evidence of a lack of substantial
interchange; and, as we read Ashcraft's and Great
Day, the most significant factor was the absence of
a need for traditional meatcutting skills. Thus,
where it is demonstrated that meat department jobs
do not entail the use of such skills, the "presump-
tion" that separate meat department units are ap-
propriate-a presumption recognized two decades
ago when the industry was such that meatcutters
had "apprentices"-does not apply.8 At least
where, as here, common benefits, facilities, and su-
pervision are also shown, lack of interchange and
transfers, a separate work area, and evidence that
5 Compare Great Scot of Florida, 256 NLRB 885 (1981) (although
precut meat products handled by the employer , meatcutters spent "sub-
stantial amount of time cutting, pricing , and packaging meats" and all
were paid higher wages than other store employees ); R-N Market, 190
NLRB 292 (1971 ) (meat department excluded from storewide unit where
department operated on "cut-to-order basis," requiring services of
"highly skilled meatcutters"); Big Y Supermarkets, 161 NLRB 1263, 1267
(1966) (skills issue not directly addressed , but record showed that some
employees were "apprentices" to meatcutters).
8 Big Y Supermarkets, 161 NLRB 1263, 1268 (1966), and Buehler's Food
Market, 232 NLRB 785, 786 (1977), where there was separate supervision
by meat department managers, are thus distinguishable.
7 As pointed out above, the record does show that it is not uncommon
for grocery department employees to stock shelves in the meat depart-
ment and occasionally for meat department employees to assist in bag-
ging groceries.
8 Big YSupermarkets, supra, 161 NLRB at 1267, 1268.
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Petitioner represents separate meat department
units in other area stores will not suffice to make
appropriate a unit of meat department employees
who perform relatively simple tasks in the handling
of boxed and prepackaged meat.
Finally, we turn to the fact that the meat depart-
ment employees previously have been represented
in a separate unit . Any weight normally accorded
such bargaining history is lessened here by the fact
that such separate representation ended approxi-
mately 2 years before the instant petition was filed
and, most significantly, that the Employer's meat
department business had changed over to the han-
dling of prepacked meats and boxed beef in the in-
terim.
Accordingly , we find that a separate unit of meat
department employees is not appropriate in these
circumstances and, absent any indication that the
Petitioner seeks an election in an overall storewide
unit, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.