The Grand Union Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 1016 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE GRAND UNION COMPANY, EMPLOYER and AMAL-
GAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMER-
ICA, LOCAL 33, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-54.-Decided February 25, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of Chairman Herzog and
Members Reynolds and Gray.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.'
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
3. The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the employees in the Em-
ployer's Pittsfield, Massachusetts, store. The Employer contends that
the unit requested is inappropriate and that only a unit embracing
all the stores in its Northern Division, which includes the Pittsfield
store, is appropriate.
3 The Employer contends that the Board should not exercise its jurisdiction in this
case because of the insubstantial interstate commerce involved It operates a retail
grocery chain, with stores located in the States of Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jeisey The value of merchandise received annually
at the Pittsfield store, the only one involved in this proceedings, is approximately
$775,000, of which 90 percent is shipped to it from outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. The sales of the store, all local, approximate $780,000 per year
The Board has frequently asserted jurisdiction over similar chain store groups we
find no meat in the Employer's contention Matter of The Great Atlantic and Pacific
Tea Company , 75 N. L. R B. 465.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 155.
1016
THE GRAND UNION COMPANY 1017
The Employer operates approximately 130 retail grocery stores,
grouped, for administrative purposes, into 3 divisions. The North-
ern Division consists of 98 stores, which in turn are divided into 8
districts. In District 3 are the Pittsfield store, located in Massa-
chusetts, and 11 others in Vermont and New York.
The Northern Division is supervised by a division manager; under
him, district sales managers supervise the stores within their respec-
tive districts. Purchases for all stores within the division are central-
ized in the division head, and each operates on a budget set by the
division manager. All merchandise, except for local produce and
dairy products, is requisitioned by each store from the division ware-
house. The wage structure within the entire division is set by the
division manager, who administers the Employer's general policies,
some of which are determined by the president. The district sales
manager coordinates all personnel policies within his district, but all
promotions and transfers are subject to final approval by the division
head. However, local store managers may discharge employees with
less than 5 years' seniority without submitting such recommendations
for approval. Though infrequent, there is some interchange of em-
ployees among the stores within the Northern Division, either to suit
the need of the Employer or the desires of the employees themselves.
Despite the geographic separation of the stores in the Northern
Division, we believe that the centralized management control over
all the stores, and the uniformity of wage rates and other terms and
conditions of employment throughout the division, make a unit limited
to the employees of a single store inappropriate.2 Relying at least in
part on the extent of organization among an employer's employees,
the Board did at times establish units similar to that requested by the
Petitioner herein. But we are now precluded, by the amended Act,
from giving controlling weight to this factor in any unit determi-
nation.3
As we have found that the unit sought by the ]Petitioner is not ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining, we find that no ques-
tion affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of em-
ployees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relat°ons Act. We shall,
therefore, dismiss the petition.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in these proceedings, the National Labor Relations Board
2 Matter of First National Stores, 63 N L R. B. 138.
3 See Section 9 (c) (5).
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hereby orders that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG, dissenting :
I would direct an election among the employees at the Pittsfield
store, the only one located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
It is 25 miles away from the Employer 's nearest store, located in New
York State . The many other stores in District 3 and in the Northern
Division , one or the other of which must be believed by my colleagues
to be the appropriate unit, are even more remote . The furtherest is
on the Canadian border, over 200 miles away.
Although a broader base for bargaining would certainly be prefer-
able, I believed that the objective facts in the record disclose that there
is more to support the Petitioner 's position than the present extent
of its organization of the employees . Geographical factors alone
provide a logical basis for setting up a unit of employees who are not
interchanged with and have no contacts with their fellows in distant
communities.