El Rancho Markets

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 32 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cluding janitorial maintenance employees , but excluding machinery maintenance
mechanics , all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
as amended.
BUTCHERS ' UNION LOCAL 120, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS
& BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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. Members of
the signatory labor organization and employees may communicate with the Board's
Regional Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Telephone
No. 556-6721, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Food Giant Supermarkets ; Mayfair Markets, cl/b/a El Rancho
Markets; Safeway Stores, Inc. and Retail Clerks International
Association Local 727, AFL-CIO. Case No. 28-CA-975. July 27,
1965
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On January 24, 1964, the Board issued a Decision and Order in this
case I finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging
in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and
(3) of the Act. The Board noted in its Decision that this case was
indistinguishable from John Brown et al., d/b/a Brown Food Store,
137 NLRB 73,2 enforcement denied 319 F. 2d 7 (C.A. 10), then pend-
ing before the Supreme Court of the United States. Thereafter the
Respondents filed a request for review in the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit and the Board filed a cross-petition for enforcement.
On March 29, 1965, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in
N.L.R.B. v. John Brown, et al., d/b/a Brown Food Store, 380 U.S.
278, affirming denial of enforcement of the Board's Order. Sub-
sequently the court of appeals, on the Board's motion, extended the
time for all further proceedings in this case to June 29, 1965, to enable
the Board to consider the case further in the light of the Brown
decision.
Thereafter, on June 28, 1965, the Board issued and caused to be
served upon the parties a notice to show cause in which the Board
stated that, having reconsidered the entire record in this proceeding in
light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown, supra, it had
concluded that the instant case is controlled in all respects by the
Brown decision; and that, therefore, the Board proposed to issue a
Supplemental Decision and Order dismissing the complaint in its en-
tirety, unless the parties showed cause in writing, on or before July 8,
1965, why the complaint should not be so dismissed.
1145 NLRB 1221.
2 Members Rodgers and Fanning dissenting
154 NLRB No. 8.
SECURITY GUARD SERVICE, INC. 33
No response to the notice to show cause was thereafter filed with the
Board. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in the notice, we
shall dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
Security Guard Service, Inc., Petitioner and Gus Rallis. Case
No. 28-UC-1. July 27,1965
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
AND AMENDMENT OF CERTIFIED UNIT
On September 17, 1964, the Regional Director for Region 28 certi-
fied Gus Rallis as exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of
all guards employed by the Employer at the NASA site at Organ,
New Mexico, excluding office clerical employees and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.' There-
after, on January 15, 1965, the Employer filed a petition for unit
clarification and amendment of certification in which it requests the
National Labor Relations Board to exclude shift supervisors or ser-
geants from the previously certified bargaining unit on the ground
that events since the aforementioned certification show them to be
supervisors as defined in the Act.
A hearing was held upon the instant petition before Hearing Officer
L. L. Porterfield on February 8, 1965. All parties appeared at the
hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer
filed a brief which has been duly considered.
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The supervisory status of the employer's shift supervisors or ser-
geants was one of the principal issues litigated in the representation
proceeding in Case No. 28-RC-1211. In that proceeding, the Em-
ployer took the position that sergeants should be excluded from the
unit as supervisors, whereas the Petitioner contended they should be
included as rank-and-file employees. In the Decision and Direction
of Election in that case, issued August 19, 1964, the Regional Director
determined that sergeants were not supervisors within the meaning of
1 Case No. 28-RC-1211.
154 NLRB No. 5.
206-446-66-vol. 154-4