Dillon Companies, Inc. d/b/a King Soopers

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Feb 12, 2021

27-RC-264824 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 12, 2021)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DILLON COMPANIES, INC. d/b/a
KING SOOPERS
Employer
and Case 27-RC-264824
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 7
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
LAUREN McFERRAN, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM J. EMANUEL, MEMBER
JOHN F. RING, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., February 12, 2021.
1 The Board has exercised its discretion under Sec. 102.67(e) of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations to examine the entire record. We agree with the Regional Director’s determination that
the petitioned-for employees are an identifiable, distinct segment (and therefore not an arbitrary
segment). Cf. Warner-Lambert Co., 298 NLRB 993 (1990). In addition to the factors discussed by
the Regional Director, we note that all of the petitioned-for employees share a common function of
preparing food and/or beverages to customer specifications and that are in a ready-to-consume
form; work behind counters, serving customers under similar working conditions, while wearing
similar uniforms, head coverings, and gloves; stock and display products in their respective work
areas; and have completed the Employer’s food-safety training. By contrast, most excluded
employees have no role in preparing food, and only the bakery and produce-department employees
have completed food-safety training and are required to wear head coverings or gloves for any
portion of their work.
We also agree with the Regional Director’s determination that the petitioned-for employees
share a community of interest with the existing unit of meat and seafood employees. The Employer
claims its departmental organization weighs against such a finding, but even if true that factor is still
outweighed by the other relevant factors, which support finding a community of interest in this
case: the contact, shared supervision, common job function, and similar skills, training, and non-
contractual working conditions and terms of employment. The record supports the Regional
Director’s analysis and findings regarding these factors, which we find to be sufficient to
demonstrate a community of interest between the petitioned-for employees and existing unit.