Allied Grocers Cooperative, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 644 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the Union named
above, and they are also free to refrain from joining any union.
ACME BOOT COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
NoTE.-We will notify any of the above -named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948 , as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office , 714 Falls
Building , 22 North Front Street, Memphis, Tennessee , 38103 , Telephone No.
Jackson 7-5451, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Allied Grocers Cooperative , Inc. and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local 677. Case No. 1-RC-6787. July 16, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION
On March 5, 1962, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 677, was cer-
tified as the representative of the employees of the Employer in the
following unit :
All employees, including part-time employees at the Employer's
wholesale establishment in Torrington, Connecticut, but exclud-
ing office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
On September 19,1962, the Employer filed a motion for clarification
of unit, requesting the Board to clarify the certification by determin-
ing that the individuals occupying the positions of stock supervisor,
dairy and meat department supervisor, and frozen food supervisor are
supervisors as defined by the Act and should be excluded from the
unit. On November 21, 1962, the Board issued a notice directing the
Petitioner to show cause why the Board should not consider and rule
upon the Employer's motion on the basis of the facts stated therein.
Thereafter, on December 3, 1962, the Union filed a response to the
Board's notice, contending that the three employees were not
supervisors.
On December 11, 1962, the Board ordered a hearing held on the
issues raised by the Employer's motion for clarification of unit and
the Union's response to the notice to show cause. Thereafter, a hear-
ing was held before A. Gene Niro, hearing officer. The hearing offi-
143 NLRB No. 67.
ALLIED GROCERS COOPERATIVE, INC. 645
cer'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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
The Employer operates a wholesale grocery and produce business
employing approximately 63 employees. In charge of the entire
operation are the general manager and the assistant general manager.
Heading up the grocery department is a general foreman and beneath
him in the hierarchy of authority is an assistant foreman, a, night fore-
man, and a stock supervisor. The produce department is also headed
by a general foreman and beneath him is an assistant foreman, a night
foreman, a dairy and meat department supervisor, and a frozen-food
supervisor.
The parties' current collective-bargaining agreement recognizes the
Union as the exclusive representative for all employees in the certified
unit. Article XVIII of the agreement states, in part, as follows :
... Supervisors will continue to perform the work that they
have in the past (i.e., prior to the Union election of February 24,
1962.) The supervisors who perform work are the two depart-
mental general foremen, their two assistants, one night foreman
in each department, one stock supervisor, one dairy and meat
department supervisor, and one frozen food supervisor.
Despite the language of article XVIII, the Union contends that the
stock supervisor, the dairy and meat department supervisor, and the
frozen-food supervisor are not in fact supervisors because their re-
sponsibilities do not satisfy the requirements of Section 2(11) of
the Act. The Union further asserts that the disputed supervisors
spend a major portion of their time in the performance of bargaining
unit work.
The stock supervisor is responsible for receiving all groceries
brought to the warehouse by truck or rail and for the proper place-
ment and rotation of merchandise in the warehouse. He is in charge
of three forklift truck operators and one or two stock clerks, directing
and instructing them in the performance of their duties. Although he
may recommend hiring, discharging, and other disciplinary action, it
appears that such recommendations are subject to independent investi-
gation by his superiors. However, the stock supervisor does have the
authority effectively to recommend merit wage increases for those
working under him and has done so at the quarterly meetings held for
this purpose. In addition, he attends meetings of the grocery depart-
646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment supervisors where general work problems are discussed. His
pay is more than 10 percent higher than the maximum specified in the
collective-bargaining contract for the labor grades of the employees
with whom he works.
The dairy and meat department supervisor has full responsibility
for 'all buying, ordering, selling, and billing of dairy and meat prod-
ucts and for the maintenance of proper inventories. On the Em-
ployer's behalf, he deals and negotiates with salesmen , suppliers, and
customers. He assigns order assembly and truck-loading work to the
three employees who work with him. In addition, he has the authority
to direct them to work overtime and to grant them time off. Two em-
ployees have been hired on his reconunendation. He attends the pro-
duce department supervisory meetings and, in common with the other
supervisors, he has the authority effectively to recommend merit wage
increases. His pay is approximately 10 percent higher than the con-,
tractual maximum for the labor grade of the employees with whom
he works.
The frozen-food supervisor does all the ordering, buying, and selling
of frozen products and sets up the truck routes for their delivery. He
deals, on behalf of the Employer, with salesmen, suppliers, and cus-
tomers. He is in charge of two employees who work in the frozen-
food coolers and in the truck-loading area. He directs them in
assembling orders, rotating inventory, and truck loading, and in
connection therewith, he may direct them to work overtime. He has
effective authority to recommend periodic merit wage increases for his
men. He has also effectively recommended the hiring of two em-
ployees, and he regularly attends the meetings of the produce depart-
ment supervisors. His pay is more than 10 percent higher than the
contractual maximum for the labor grade of the men with whom he
works.
We find that the duties assigned to these three individuals require
them to exercise responsible direction over the employees in their de-
partments. Furthermore, all of them make effective recommendations,
at least with respect to wage increases . Accordingly, we find, that the
individuals working in the three disputed classifications are super-
visors within the meaning of the Act, and shall grant the Employer's
motion for clarification by excluding them from the unit.
[The Board amended the Certification of Representatives specifi-
cally to exclude from the unit described therein the classifications of
stock supervisor , dairy and meat department supervisor , and frozen-
food supervisor.]