Motts Supermarkets, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 27, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 172 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Motts Shop Rite of Springfield , Inc. and Motts Shop
Rite of Chicopee , Inc., subsidiaries of Motts Supermar-
kets, Inc.' and Retail Employees ' Union , Local 1459,
Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner . Case 1-RC- 10432 r
April 27, 1970
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND
JENKINS
On July 18, 1969 , the Regional Director for Region
I issued a Decision and Order. in the above-entitled
proceeding , in which he dismissed the petition , finding
inappropriate the requested unit of employees at the
Employer ' s two retail food stores located in Springfield
and Chicopee , Massachusetts. Thereafter , pursuant to
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended,
the Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director ' s Decision , contending that in making
his unit finding , he departed , from Board precedent.
The Petitioner ' s parent organization , herein called the
Retail Clerks , was permitted to file a supplemental memo-
randum in support of the request for review. The
Employer filed opposition to the request for review.2
By telegraphic order dated November 10, 1969, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the request
for review . Thereafter the parties filed timely briefs
on review. '
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case, including the briefs of the parties , and makes
the following findings:
As above indicated, the Petitioner seeks to represent
a unit ' of all employees at Motts' two food stores in
Springfield and Chicopee , Massachusetts . The Intervet
nor, Local 33, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO, is in accord
with the request, but Motts contends that the only
appropriate unit herein is chainwide , encompassing its
12 stores in Connecticut and Massachusetts . The Region-
al Director concluded that the record demonstrates no
more autonomy in the operations of the two requested
stores considered together than exists for Motts' Meri-
den, Connecticut , store involved in Mott 's Shop-Rite
of Meriden, Inc., 174 NLRB No. 157, where the Board
held to be inappropriate a requested single -store meat
department unit at Motts ' Meriden store . The Petitioner,
with the support of the Retail Clerks , disputes this
The Employer's parent company is referred to herein as Motts
' The opposition contains a motion to strike certain of the Petitioner's
exhibits As we do not rely on the contents of such exhibits in disposing
of the issues on review, we need not and do not rule on the motion
conclusion, arguing that, under the record 'facts, the
requested unit is appropriate. We agree, for the following
reasons:
Under the facts found by the Board in the aforemen-
tioned Meriden case, it is clear that a chainwide unit
would be appropriate. However, as no labor organization
is currently seeking to represent that unit, the only
issue raised here is whether the requested unit of the
employees of Motts' two stores in Springfield and Chico-
pee is not also an appropriate unit.3
Motts' Springfield and Chicopee stores together
employ about 190 employees, all but 6 of whom reside
in Massachusetts. These two stores are 71/1 miles apart,
are the only stores of the chain located in Massachusetts,
and fall within the Greater Springfield Metropolitan area.4
The other 10 stores are located in Connecticut, the
nearest of which is about 28 miles from the Massachu-
setts stores.
As the Board found in the Meriden case, the operations
of Motts' chain of retail food stores are highly integrated,
under the control of central office management at East
Hartford. However, the record shows that store manag-
ers at the Springfield and Chicopee stores have full
authority to hire and discharge part-time employees; who
comprise about 60 percent of the store complements.
As to full-time employees; the store managers screen
out applicants who are obviously unqualified and, when
the district supervisor is not present, they interview
qualified applicants and may hire them, subject to the
approval of the central office. Likewise; the store manag-
ers recommend employees for management training and
recommend periodic merit increases; they may delay
the granting of increases for periods up to 30 days.
As the Board has stated in a number of cases, with the approval
of the courts, more than one unit may be appropriate among the
employees of a particular enterprise Drug Fair-Community Drug Co ,
Inc , 180 NLRB No 94, and cases therein cited, Haag Drug Company,
Incorporated, 169 NLRB 877, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company v N L R B, 411 F 2d 356 (C A 7), cert denied 396 U S
832, enfg 163 NLRB 677, NLRB v The Western and Southern
Life Insurance Company, 391 F 2d 119 (C A 3), cert denied 393
US 978, affg 163 NLRB 138, Banco Credito y Ahoro Ponceno v
NLRB, 390 F 2d 110 (C A 1), cert denied 393 U S 932, enfg
167 NLRB 397 Indeed; although one of the alternative units in which
employees may be represented may be viewed as more effective than
others for promotion of a stable bargaining relationship, the Board
generally does not attempt to resolve that question but requires only
that the unit a labor organization seeks be an appropriate one The
issue of the appropriate unit is therefore necessarily framed by the
requests of labor organizations and is resolved by consideration of
all relevant facts in the record ,' including the extent to which the
employees have been organized for bargaining purposes Section 9(c)(5)
of the Act prohibits reliance on extent of organization as the controlling
factor in unit determinations However, where relevant, it is entitled
to some weight.
4 They are also within the Springfield-Chicopee-Holyoke Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined in Standard Metropolitan Statis-
tical Areas, 1967 edition, prepared by the Office of Statistical Standards,
Bureau of the Budget, which area is utilized by the Wage and Hour
Division of the United States Department of Labor in making its wage
surveys
' It is not shown which of two distract supervisors is over the two
Massachusetts stores Nor is it indicated how often the district supervisor
visits these two stores However, the record reveals that most applicants
for employment at the two Massachusetts stores are interviewed at
the stores and not at the central office
182 NLRB No. 19
MOTTS SHOP RITE OF SPRINGFIELD
They may also suspend full-time employees for periods
not exceeding 24 hours.
As to employee interchange affecting the requested
stores, in 1968, the first full year of operations for
the Massachusetts stores, there were 14 permanent trans-
fers from one to the other and there were 9 between
either of them and the Connecticut stores in the chain.
The more critical figures for temporary transfers show
95 instances of interchange affecting the two Massachu-
setts stores, involving 61 employees and 217 man 'days
of work. However, 36 of the 95 instances were between
the two requested stores. The remaining 59 instances
(involving 30 employees and 151 man days) were between
one, of the two Massachusetts stores and one of the
other stores in the chain. This degree of interchange
may be compared with the 1967 figures for the Meriden
store, where there were 173 instances affecting a comple
ment of 75 employees.'
Although the operations of all the stores in the chain
are integrated and labor relations policy is centrally
determined, there are other factors distinguishing the
Massachusetts stores. Some modifications in policy must
be made for the two Greater Springfield stores because
of their location in another State. Thus, there must
be compliance with a different set of labor laws on
the statute books of the Commonwealth of Massachu-
setts. The record indicates specifically that employees
working at the Massachusetts stores have two paid
holidays not enjoyed by employees at the Connecticut
stores.7 The two Massachusetts stores do local advertis-
ing in newspapers with a circulation in the Greater
Springfield area and the Connecticut stores are not listed
in such advertisements.
The above factors, in our opinion, substantially sup-
port the requested unit. We note especially that the
' Thus, the rate of interchange, expressed as the average number
of instances per week divided by the employee complement at the
store, for Meriden was 4 4 percent and for the two Massachusetts
combined was 0.6 percent.
Although we find it unnecessary to rely upon it to support our
decision herein, and with due deference to what appears to be a
contrary view expressed in Local 1325, Retail Clerks v N L R B ,
414 F 2d '1194 (C A D C ), we believe that the power of a State to
regulate labor relations for enterprises doing business within its borders
and the existence of a separate and distinct statutory framework, albeit
the substantive differences between the laws of the several States
involved may at a given time be minor, are factors entitled to some
weight in determining whether a grouping of employees at all retail
outlets of an enterprise within a State may be an appropriate unit
173
two Massachusetts stores are located in the Greater
Springfield Metropolitan area which is a distinct labor
market for employment at these stores. Also, we view
the interchange of employees between either of these
two stores and other stores in the chain as minimal
when it is compared with that found to affect the request-
ed employees in the Meriden case. Moreover, the greater
degree of interchange of employees between the two
Greater Springfield stores lends added support to their
linkage for bargaining purposes. Finally, we give some
weight to the facts that there is no history of collective
bargaining for any of Motts' employees and that no
labor organization is seeking to represent its employees
on the basis of a broader unit than that requested
by the Petitioner.
On these facts we conclude that the employees in
both these two stores have a substantial community
of interest, and one which is sufficiently distinct to
warrant their representation together in a single-bargain-
ing unit, apart from the employees in the Motts' stores
in Connecticut.
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting com-
merce exists concerning the representation of certain
employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tions 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time employees
employed at the Employer's Springfield and Chicopee,
Massachusetts, stores, excluding professional employ-
ees, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
e In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity
to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right
to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of
voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with
them Excelsior Underwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236, N L.R B v Wyman-
Gordon Company, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed
that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses
of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the
Regional Director for Region I within 7 days of the date of this
Decision on Review and Direction of Election The Regional Director
shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension
of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this
requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever
proper objections are filed