King Jack's Foodarama

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1963

140 N.L.R.B. 1154 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Because, as I find, Respondent's 1956 contract was not a bar to the election, and
District 50 was under no obligation to name Respondent in its representation peti-
tion as an organization seeking to represent Card's employees, it follows that the
election was valid, and from this, that Respondent's claim of invalidity is not a
defense to its picketing of Card's jobsite at Pinconning, Michigan, beginning in June
1962. Respondent, an uncertified labor organization, in picketing Card's jobsite
within a year of a valid election and after District 50 had been certified, did so for
the object of forcing or requiring Card to recognize and bargain with it as the repre-
sentative of Card's employees, in violation of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with the
operations of the employer as set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion that I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Bernard Card & Sons, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent and Intervenor are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. By picketing Bernard Card & Sons, Inc., since June 4, 1962, with an object of
forcing and requiring Card to recognize and bargain collectively with Respondent,
notwithstanding that Respondent was not then certified as the representative of Card's
employees, without a petition being filed under Section 9(c) of the Act, Respondent
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (7) (A) and (B)
of the Act.
4. By inducing and encouraging employees of Card at its Pinconning, Michigan,
jobsite not to perform services at such site, with an object of forcing or requiring
Card to recognize or bargain with Respondent, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (C) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Great Leopard Market Corporation , Inc., d/b/a King Jack's
Foodarama and Amalgamated Food Employees Union, Local
196, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of
North America , AFL-CIO. Case No. A0-49. February 7, 1963
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed by Amalgamated Food Employees Union,
Local 196, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Petitioner, for an Advisory
Opinion in conformity with Section 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. On January 16, 1963,
Bennet F. Schauflier, Regional Director for the Fourth Region of the
140 NLRB No. 104.
LOCAL 1098, INT'L HOD CARRIERS , BUILDING , ETC. 1155
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Regional Director,
filed a motion to intervene setting forth the jurisdictional facts devel-
oped in his investigation of the unfair labor practice charges filed on
December 18, 1962, by the Petitioner against the Employer in Case
No. 4-CA-2814 . The motion of the Regional Director to intervene is
hereby granted.
In pertinent part, the Petition and Intervention show as follows:
1. Great Leopard Market Corporation, Inc., d/b/a King Jack's
Foodarama , herein called the Employer , operates a retail grocery busi-
ness at 543 Penn Street , Delaware County, Chester , Pennsylvania,
where Burt's Pennsylvania , Inc., is a, tenant . Big C Shopping Center,
Inc., is the owner of the aforesaid premises.
2. The Petitioner, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, is a party defendant to
an injunction action in Equity, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Delaware County, Pennsylvania, as No. 24 of the 1963 term of said
court instituted by the Employer , by Burt's Pennsylvania , Inc., and
by Big C Shopping Center, Inc. The injunction action seeks to enjoin
the Petitioner from picketing the premises at 543 Penn Street, and to
secure damages arising from said picketing.
3. The Petitioner commenced picketing on December 28, 1962, as
a result of a primary strike in progress against the Employer. The
Petitioner alleges that the strike and picketing arose from the Em-
ployer's unfair labor practices which are the subject of the aforemen-
tioned charges in Case No. 4-CA-2814 alleging violations of Section
8(a) (1), (3),and (5) oftheAct.
4. The court fixed January 7, 1963, as a date for hearing on the ap-
plication fora preliminary injunction.
5. The Employer, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in the
retail grocery business at 537-543 Penn Street, Delaware County,
Chester, Pennsylvania. During the calendar year ending December
31, 1962, the Employer made sales of groceries, fruits, vegetables, and
meats in excess of $500,000. During that same period, the Employer
purchased merchandise valued in excess of $50,000 which was shipped
to it from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
6. There have been no findings made by any court or agency respect-
ing the aforesaid commerce data.
7. No response as provided by the Board 's Rules and Regulations
has been filed by the Employer.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that :
1. The Employer is a retail enterprise engaged in the grocery busi-
ness in Chester, Pennsylvania.
2. During the calendar year of 1962, the Employer did a gross vol-
ume of business in excess of $500 ,000 and made purchases of merchan-
GS1-492-63-vol 140 74
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dise valued in excess of $50,000 which it received directly from outside
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
3. The Board's current standard for asserting jurisdiction over re-
tail enterprises within its statutory jurisdiction is an annual gross
volume of business of at least $500,000. Carolina Supplies and Ce-
ment Co., 122 NLRB 88, 89. The Employer's out-of-State purchases,
constituting direct inflow under the Board's decision in Siemons Mail-
ing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85, bring its operations within the Board's
statutory jurisdiction while its gross volume of business meets the dol-
lar volume test in the Board's standard for asserting jurisdiction over
retail enterprises.
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the facts
here present, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Employer's
operations with respect to labor disputes cognizable under Sections 8,
0, and 10 of the Act.
Local 525, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and E. A. Weinel.
Case No. 14-CD-98. February 7, 1963
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On June 20, 1960, the Board issued a Decision and Determination of
Dispute (127 NLRB 1377), following a hearing held pursuant to notice
issued under Section 10 (k) of the Act. The hearing was conducted
in conformity with the Board's then current interpretation of Section
10(k), and was based on the Company's charge that the Respondent
Union had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. In its Determination of Dispute the
Board in substance determined that the Respondent was not lawfully
entitled to force the Company to assign the disputed work to its
members.
Thereafter the Respondent refused to accept the Determination of
Dispute, and the complaint was accordingly issued, alleging that the
Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(b) (4) (D). On October 26,1960, Trial Examiner Robert
E. Mullin issued his Intermediate Report, sustaining the complaint.
The Respondent duly filed exceptions thereto and a supporting brief.
On January 9, 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States issued
an opinion in the case of N.L.R.B. v. Radio d Television Broadcast
Engineers Union Local 1212, I.B.E.W., AFL-CIO (CBS). 364 U.S.
573, in substance holding that a Determination of Dispute such as had
been issued in this case was not responsive to the statutory mandate of
140 NLRB No. 100.