Local 56, Food and Allied Wkrs. Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 26, 1973

207 N.L.R.B. 1065 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

LOCAL 56, FOOD AND ALLIED WKRS . UNION 1065
Local 56, Amalgamated Food and Allied Workers
Union, affiliated with Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO,' and The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Company, Inc. and Warehouse Employees Local 169,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case
4-CD-320
Employer's business during the past year was valued
in excess of $100 million.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
December 26, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER QUASHING
NOTICE OF HEARING
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, follow-
ing a charge filed by The Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Company, Inc., herein called the Employer,
alleging that Local 56, Amalgamated Food and
Allied Workers Union, affiliated with Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO, herein called Food Workers,
had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. Pursuant
to a notice, a hearing was held in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, before Hearing Officer James A.
Stephens on June 11 and 26, 1973. All parties
appeared and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine, and to cross-examine witnesses,
and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues.3 No
briefs have been filed by any of the parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
On the entire record in this case, the Board makes
the following findings:
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer, a Maryland corporation, with its
headquarters located in New York City, is engaged
in the receipt, storage, distribution, and retail sale of
food products and related items in approximately 37
states of the United States. During the past year, the
Employer purchased goods valued in excess of $150
million from sources outside the State of New Jersey
which were shipped in interstate commerce to its
New Jersey facility. The gross volume of the
i The name of Respondent appears as corrected at the hearing.
2 The name of the Intervenor appears as amended at the hearing.
The parties stipulated, and we find, that Food
Workers and that Warehouse Employees Local 169,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein
called Warehousemen, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of the Dispute
The Employer has been engaged prior to May 19,
1973,4 in the business of receiving, storing, selecting,
and distributing perishable grocery products, includ-
ing but not limited to such products as butter, oleo,
refrigerated biscuits , refrigerated cheese, and refrig-
erated juices , at its Yeadon, Pennsylvania, facility.
In May, the Employer decided to move this work
to its Florence, New Jersey, meat plant because more
modern refrigeration space was available there.
Employees represented by Warehousemen, who
performed this work at Yeadon, were transferred to
Florence where they continued to perform the same
work. Other employees at the Employer's Florence
facility, who were engaged in handling meats, were
represented by Food Workers. Both Unions were
informed by the Employer of this transfer of work.
Food Workers responded that it claimed any work
performed in the meat plant building. On May 8, the
Employer informed Food Workers that the ware-
housemen would be moving into the meat plant the
following day (May 9). Food Workers responded
"you're going to have trouble," and asked the
Employer to assign the work to its members. The
Employer declined. On May 9, the Employer called a
meeting of employees represented by Food Workers
at Florence to inform them of the impending move
and, at 9:30 a.m., the day-shift employees represent-
ed by Food Workers refused to work. In an
unsuccessful attempt to resolve the work stoppage, a
meeting was held at 11:15 a.m. attended by repre-
sentatives of both Unions. On May 10, 11, 12, and
14, none of the employees represented by either
Union reported for work. The work stoppage
ultimately ceased upon issuance of an injunction by
the United States District Court of New Jersey,
3 Food Workers did not appear at the second day of hearing.
4 All events herein occurred in 1973 except as otherwise stated.
207 NLRB No. 149
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Camden Division , based upon the violation of no- D. Applicability of the Statute
strike clauses in the respective collective -bargaining
agreements with the Employer.
B. The Work in Dispute
The work in dispute, as stipulated by the parties,
involves "the assignment of the receiving, storing,
selecting, and distributing perishable grocery prod-
ucts including but not limited to such products as
butter, oleo, refrigerated biscuits, refrigerated chees-
es, and refrigerated juices at the Employer's Flor-
ence, New Jersey distribution center."
C. Contentions of the Parties
Warehousemen contends that there is no claim
presently being made by Food Workers for the
disputed work. Counsel for Warehousemen asserts,
and counsel for the Employer does not dispute, that
it was agreed between the Unions on June 10 that the
work in dispute herein had been properly assigned to
the Warehousemen and that Food Workers would
disclaim Warehousemen's work. Warehousemen and
the Employer stipulated that they received a copy of
a letter dated June 25, 1973, sent from counsel for
Food Workers to the Hearing Officer herein,
purporting to disclaim any interest in the work in
dispute. Counsel for the Employer disputes neither
that the disclaimer encompassed all the disputed
work nor that the disclaimer was referrable to the
asserted settlement between the Unions.
Section 10(k) of the Act, which directs the Board to
hear and determine disputes out of which 8(b)(4)(D)
charges have arisen , limits the Board's authority in
this respect to situations in which an employer's
assignment of the work is in dispute. The Board has
held, with Supreme Court approval, that a jurisdic-
tional dispute no longer exists where one of the
competing unions or parties effectively renounces its
claim to the work.5
In this case, it appears that both Unions represent-
ing all the employees of the Employer at the locale of
the dispute have amicably resolved their conflicting
claims in accord with the Employer's work assign-
ment . The Employer has expressed its satisfaction
with such resolution by accepting the Respondent's
disclaimer of the assigned work, and there is no
evidence that the Respondent or employees repre-
sented by it have engaged in conduct subsequent to
such disclaimer which is inconsistent therewith.
Under these circumstances , we find that there no
longer exist competing claims to the disputed work
within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore
quash the notice of hearing herein .6
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the notice of hearing
issued in this case be, and it hereby is, quashed.
5 NLRB. v. Plasterers ' Local Union No. 79 (Texas State Tile & Terrazzo 6 Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 465 (Thorpe insulation company),
Co., eta!), 404 U.S. 116, 134 (1971); Local 1905, Carpet, linoleum & Soft Tile 198 NLRB No. 184 ; Local 1905, Carpet, Linoleum & Soft Tile Layers
Layers (Southwestern Floor Co.), 143 NLRB 251. (Southwestern Floor Co.), supra.
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 19750-550-245