Super Valu Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 3, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 469 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

SUPER VALU STORES, INC.
Super Valu Stores , Inc., Petitioner and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local
Union No. 394'
Super Valu Stores , Inc. and Bakery & [Confectionery
Workers Local Union 34 , affiliated with the
Bakery & Confectionery Workers International
Union of America,' Petitioner . Cases 18-RM-667
and 18-RC-7884
November 3, 1969
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Under separate petitions duly filed under Section
9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a consolidated hearing was held before
Charles J Frisch, Hearing Officer. Following the
hearing, this case was transferred to the National
Labor Relations Board in Washington, D C.,
pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended. The
Employer-Petitioner has filed a brief.
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 proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board
finds-
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3 On May 13, 1969, in Case 18-RM-667, the
Regional Director approved a Stipulation for
Certification upon Consent Election, executed by the
Employer and the Teamsters a few days earlier,
providing for an election among all four bakery
department employees at the Employer's new
warehouse at Urbandale, Iowa. The election was
conducted on May 22, 1969, between 2:45 and 3
p.m. On the same day, however, at 11:07 am ,
Bakery Workers filed a petition for an election in
the same group of bakery department employees.
Acting upon instructions of the Regional Director,
the Board agent impounded the ballots in the
election in Case 18-RM-667, and they remain
unopened to date. The Acting Regional Director, on
' Herein called Teamsters
'Herein called Bakery Workers
469
June 9, 1969, issued an order withdrawing approval
of the consent election agreement in Case
18-RM-667 and vacating the election On the same
day, the two petitions were ordered consolidated for
a hearing. which was held onIJune 17, 1969.On July 1,
1969, the Regional Director transferred the
consolidated cases to the Board.
The Employer contends that the Bakery Workers'
petition should be dismissed as a tardy attempt to
intervene in Case 18-RM-667, and that the ballots
in the May 22 election should be counted, a tally
served, and an appropriate certification issued. We
find no merit in this contention. Considering the
broad authority which the Board has delegated to
Regional Directors with regard to representation
proceedings,' we do not believe that the Regional
Director here committed an abuse of discretion in
vacating the May 22 election. Implicit in the
Regional Director's authority to approve consent
election agreements is his authority to revoke that
approval when he determines that changed
circumstances, discovered prior to the counting of
ballots, warrant such revocation ' We find that the
Regional Director's decision to permit intervention
in the present proceeding was not arbitrary.
Furthermore, in view of our holding that the
Regional Director acted within his discretion in
vacating the election, we do not agree with the
Employer's contention that a "valid" election has
been held within the meaning of Section 9(c)(3) of
the Act,' thus precluding another election in this
unit for 12 months.
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting
commerce exists concerning representation of
certain employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
4. The employees in question were hired directly
by the Employer for a bakery department which was
first established when the Employer moved from a
warehouse located in Des Moines to a new
warehouse in a nearby suburb, Urbandale. These
employees had not worked for the Employer before,
nor had the Employer maintained a bakery
department in its previous warehouse. Their duties
require them to work solely in the bakery
department, which is situated in a room inside the
warehouse In the remainder of the warehouse,
employees, most already represented by the
Teamsters, receive and ship merchandise, perform
various types of prepackaging, and separate such
items as produce into smaller units. There is no
interchange of bakery department employees and
other warehouse employees. Operations performed
'Sec 101 21, National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations
and Statements of Procedures, Series 8 , as amended See also Sec
102 65(b), Board ' s Rules and Regulations
'Oroply Corporation, 121 NLRB 1067, 1068
'The provision , in part, states , " No election shall be directed in any
bargaining unit or any subdivision within which , in the preceding 12-month
period , a valid election shall have been held "
179 NLRB No. 76
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the bakery employees may be summarized as
follows A premix substance utilized in baked goods
is purchased by the Employer from outside
suppliers. It is received by bakery department
employees in bags which contain detailed measuring,
mixing, and timing instructions. Employees add
water and yeast and compound the resultant mixture
in a mixing device, utilizing an automatic timer. The
dough is then placed on a dolly while the yeast
ferments. After the leavening process, the dough is
cut and weighed in various sized pieces, depending
upon the desired product. It is finally shaped by
machine, frozen, boxed, and shipped to
supermarkets, where it is later baked and sold by
store employees.
The bakery employees are directed in their work
activities by a foreman who the parties have
stipulated is a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act, and who exercises no authority over any other
employees in the warehouse. The Employer's bakery
department as a whole is under the ultimate
supervision of the Employer's chainwide Bakery
Production Manager, to whom the foreman of these
employees directly reports. The warehouse
(operations) superintendent has no responsibility for
directing work activities in the bakery department,
although he does have the responsibility of assuring
that the department's physical facilities are
adequate. Fringe benefits and working conditions of
the bakery employees vary materially from those of
the other warehouse employees.
It thus is evident that the Employer's bakery
department was established as a well-defined
administrative unit at the warehouse to better serve
its retail store bakery needs, and that the
department was provided with both functional
independence and separate supervision to assure
efficiency in its operations. In view of the separate
community of interests which the bakery department
employees share, as discussed above, we find no
merit in Teamsters' contention that the bakery
department constitutes an accretion to the existing
unit represented by Teamsters. On the contrary, we
find that the employees in the bakery department
constitute a newly established departmental unit
which may be separately represented by a labor
organization if the employees so desire. Accordingly,
we reject the Teamster's contention that the
petitions seeking an election among the Employer's
bakery department employees are barred by that
union's current collective-bargaining agreement.
Since we find that bakery department employees
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining, we shall direct an election in
that unit and include the names of both the Bakery
Workers and the Teamsters on the ballot.
5. The following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All bakery department employees at the
Employer's warehouse at Urbandale, Iowa,
including mixers, sheeters and packagers, but
excluding all other employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Direction of Election6 omitted from publication.]
" ► n 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 Wvman -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 18 within 7
days of the date of this Decision 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