The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 1, 1963

140 N.L.R.B. 1011 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

THE GREAT A & P TEA CO. (FAMILY SAVINGS CENTER) 1011
Respondent's testimony not mentioned are reflected in a careful examination of the
record. In view of the above findings no useful purpose would be served by detailing
them.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Respondent described 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 com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent unlawfully discriminated with respect to the
tenure of employment of Gilbert Medina, Otto Laube, Robert Anderson, R. T. Bogue,
and Leonard Leech. It will therefore be recommended that Respondent offer them
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to any rights or privileges, and make them whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of discrimination, by paying to them a
sum of money equal to that which they normally would have earned as wages from
the date of their discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, plus
their net earnings during that period, in accordance with the formula set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289-294.
As the unfair labor practices found above indicate a deliberate and flagrant attempt
to thwart the right of employees in duly selecting their bargaining representative and
the likelihood of the recurrence of such action appears likely, a broad cease-and-
desist order will be recommended.
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. By discharging Gilbert Medina, Otto Laube, Robert Anderson, R. T. Bogue,
and Leonard Leech, Respondent discriminated with the respective employment of
said employees because they engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or mutual aid and protection, thus violating Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
2. By interrogation and threats addressed to any employee, Respondent interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employee in the exercise of his rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act and thus Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company ( Family Savings
Center ) and Retail Clerks International Association , Retail
Store Employees Union , Local 1407, AFL-CIO and Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
Amalgamated Food Employees Union , Local 590, AFL-CIO,
Party to the Contract . Case No. 6-CA-0492. February 1, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 5, 1962, Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
140 NLRB No. 89.
681-492-63-vol. 140-65
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. There-
after, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, and the entire record in the case, including the exceptions
and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
1 We note that in finding that the Family Savings Center was an accretion to the
Coraopolis A & P store, the Trial Examiner cited Robert Hall Clothes, Inc, 118 NLRB
1096, a case which was impliedly overruled by the Board in Sav-On Drugs, Inc, 138
NLRB 1032 (Member Rodgers dissenting). The facts of this case fully support the Trial
Examiner' s finding of accretion , and we do not consider either Robert Hall or Sav-On
applicable here.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge filed May 28, 1962, by the Retail Clerks International
Association, Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1407, AFL-CIO, herein called
Retail Clerks, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for the Sixth Region, issued a complaint on June 13, 1962, against
The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (Family Savings Center), herein called
Respondent or Company, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of
the Act. The Company, in its answer, conceded certain facts with respect to its
business operations but denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Samuel M. Singer
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on July 23, 24, 25, and 26, 1962, in which all parties,
including the Party to the Contract (Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work-
men of North America, Amalgamated Food Employees Union, Local 590, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Meat Cutters), participated through counsel At the close of the
hearing the parties waived oral argument and agreed to submit briefs. Briefs were
thereafter filed by all four parties. A motion to dismiss the complaint, joined in
by the Company and the Party to the Contract, made at the close of the hearing, is
disposed of by the findings and conclusions in this Intermediate Report.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Maryland corporation and maintains its principal office in
New York, New York, and a divisional office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is a
nationwide enterprise, operating retail food stores, warehouses, and other facilities
in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and other States. During the past year, a
representative period, Respondent, in the course of its business operations, had gross
annual sales in excess of $1 million. During the same period, Respondent received
at its Pennsylvania stores goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from outside Pennsylvania. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE GREAT A & P TEA CO. (FAMILY SAVINGS CENTER) 1013
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Retail Clerks and Meat Cutters are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 8(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The basic issue presented in this case is whether, as the complaint alleges, the
Company violated the Act by extending and thereafter applying its existing union-
security agreement with the Meat Cutters, to a newly established facility of the Com-
pany at Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. The Company defends its action on the ground
that the facility in question constitutes an accretion to, or enlargement of, the existing
bargaining unit consisting of the employees in the Company's approximately 155 retail
stores for which the Meat Cutters is the statutory representative. The facts pertinent
to the consideration of this basic issue and other issues are detailed below.'
A. The general organizational structure of the Company
As already noted, the Company is engaged in the operation of retail food stores
and other facilities throughout the United States. Administratively, its operation
is handled through divisions encompassing, in this instance, several States. Within
the division there are smaller administrative "units" headed by a field superintendent.
The "Pittsburgh Unit," involved in this case, covers portions of western Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, and Ohio and is composed of some 155 2 retail stores. Under the
field superintendent is the field (or area) supervisor who is in charge of 12 to 16
stores. The individual stores are under the supervision of a store manager who is
assisted by one or more comanagers.
During the period here involved the manager of the Coraopolis store was Ray
LeRoy who is directly responsible to Field Supervisor Walter Piott, and the latter,
in turn, to Field Superintendent D. C. Avery, the head of the Pittsburgh unit. Ap-
proximately 3,600 to 3,800 men and women are employed in the Pittsburgh unit.
B. The Coraopolis food store prior to the establishment of the
savings department
Prior to the events here involved, the Coraopolis store, located at 920 Second Ave-
nue, was divided into various departments, including the grocery, dairy, and produce
departments and a miscellaneous department. The store first opened in June 1960
and was stocked with the usual merchandise found in the typical A & P supermarket.
One area of the store, facing the west wall, was devoted to the display of nonfood
items. Altogether 40 out of 230 display sections were filled with such items, ranging
considerably both in type and price. Among the products sold from time to time
were appliance goods such as toasters, waffle irons, blenders, and electric razors;
tools such as drills, sanders, and power saws; radios, cameras, bicycles, and clocks;
glassware and plastic ware; hardware and aluminum ware; kitchen gadgets; garden
items; children's shoes and sneakers; low-priced ladies' dresses; men 's pants; under-
wear, shirts, and other softwear; and cosmetics, beauty care supplies, and drug items.
Introduced in the record are various order sheets, pricelists, and flyers depicting
the wide variety of items that have been made available for sale, and have been sold,
in the Coraopolis and other A & P "food stores" in the Pittsburgh unit . Arthur Mynio,
the assistant buyer for nonfood products in the Pittsburgh unit , estimated that he had
purchased "20,000 or 30,000" such products for sale in the unit . Among the higher
priced items sold were power mowers ($49.95) ; aluminum ware sets ($44) ; rotis-
series ($39.95); bicycles ($29.95); blenders ($29 to $33); toasters ($19.95); clocks
1 The findings made herein are almost entirely based on substantially uncontradicted
testimony, documentary evidence, and stipulations of fact entered into at the hearing. In
the few instances in which witnesses gave different versions of the events or matters in
issue, I accepted the version given by the witness who appeared more credible and thp
version which was more consistent with the inherent probabilities of the situation
Although the Charging Party (the Retail Clerks) refused to join in portions of the
stipulations, I received these stipulations on the theory that the General Counsel, who
has the primary responsibility for the prosecution of the case, was a party to the stipula-
tions See Borg-Warner Corporation, 113 NLRB 152, 154-155, enfd . sub nom., Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, CIO v. N.L.R.B., 231 F. 2d 237, 242 (C.A. 7), cert. denied 852 U.S. 908.
S Some company officials gave the figure as 161 ; the figure 155 is listed in one of the
stipulations executed by the parties.
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
($24.95); radios ($19.95); cameras ($19.95); electric shavers ($19.95); hair driers
($19.95); electric blankets ($14.95, $19.95); and pressure cookers ($14.95).
Approximately 45 employees were employed in all of the departments of the food
store.
C. The establishment of the Family Savings Center
1. The origin and description of the "savings department"
Field Supervisor Piott, a credible witness, testified at length regarding the
evolution of the Family Savings Center . During the fall of 1961 , Piott had super-
vised several company stores in the Washington ( Pennsylvania ) area. Observing the
operations of three major chains in the area, he came to the conclusion that these
competitors , by handling "extended lines" of nonfood items were able "to draw more
food business and take business away" from his own stores. Piott then proceeded
to enlarge the nonfood sections of two Washington stores, installing a number of
larger and higher priced home appliances , among other things. The sections were
identified by ceiling signs, reading "Family Discount Center." According to Piott, the
"amount of traffic and the pickup in the food business" was "good and substantial"
and he decided to recommend to his superior , Ayres (vice president in charge of the
Pittsburgh unit ), enlargement of the nonfood business at Coraopolis when he learned
that there were "vacant rooms available adjacent to our operation " at that place.
Piott explained to Ayres that in view of the ever-increasing nonfood business at
Coraopolis , the nonfood section in that store was "already showing signs of being
too small."
Piott's recommendation was ultimately accepted and the Company leased the
remaining unoccupied part of the building at 920 Second Avenue which had housed
the food store. Immediately adjacent to the food store the Company installed
a coin-operated Laundromat 3 and, next to the laundromat , the nonfood operation
which company witnesses at the hearing referred to as the "savings department."
All three facilities-the food store, the Laundromat , and "savings department"-
have been collectively designated by the Company in newspaper ads, circulars, and
signs posted at both ends of the building ( above the food department and above
the savings department ) and on the parking lots, as the "Family Savings Center." 4
Circulars distributed by the Company and a newspaper ad in the Coraopolis Record
of April 12, 1962, announcing the opening of the Family Savings Center to the
public, proclaim that the Coraopolis store "has just been remodeled ," that a "brand
new department" has been opened, and that the store has been "expanded to offer"
additional merchandise.
Since each of the three facilities is separated by walls, movement from one
facility to another can only be had by walking out to the sidewalk. Surrounding
the entire Center are two parking lots which serve the customers of all the facilities
and on which there are cart-return stations used interchangeably by the customers.
The savings department occupies 32 percent of the combined space of the savings
department and the food store.5
2. The initial stocking and staffing of the savings department
The savings department opened for business on April 9, 1962.6 The initial stock
of merchandise for this department was obtained by transfer of 25 shelf sections of
nonfood items from the adjacent food store, together with all accumulated stock
pertaining to those items which had been stored in the basement of the food store.
Additional merchandise was transferred from other food stores in the Pittsburgh
unit. The balance was obtained from the Pittsburgh warehouse or directly from
distributors.
3 Similar laundromats-adjacent to food stores-exist at other A & P installations in
the country.
4 Witnesses at the hearing and also counsel frequently referred to the "savings depart-
ment" as the "Center" and sometimes the "Family Savings Center," to distinguish it
from the original facility which was referred to as the "food store" or the "grocery "
For sake of convenience the newly added facility (excepting the laundromat) will here-
after be referred to as the "savings department" and the old facility as the "food store."
5 The figure does not include the laundromat, so that the space occupied by the savings
department is actually less than 32 percent of the total occupied building space
0 Present for the opening ceremony were various officials of the Company both from the
Pittsburgh unit as well as other sections of the country. Such visits at "remodel" open-
ings or new store openings were not unusual.
THE GREAT A & P TEA CO. (FAMILY SAVINGS CENTER) 1015
Ray LeRoy , who had been the manager of the food store prior to April 9 remained
in charge of that store and , in addition , assumed overall responsibility for the
savings department. Jack Gebhardt continued as LeRoy's assistant or comanager
in the food store . Paul Tobias and George Miller were made comanagers of the
savings department , directly under LeRoy . Miller had been formerly comanager
of another food store . In LeRoy's absence, Gebhardt, the comanager of the food
store, assumes overall responsibility for the operations of the entire Family Savings
Center.
C. E. Weitzel , personnel manager for the Company 's Pittsburgh unit, was in charge
of the recruitment of employees for the savings department . He commenced inter-
viewing prospective employees about 4 weeks before the opening of the department,
conducting the final interview on March 17 in the basement of the food store.
Weitzel credibly testified that he used the same sources ( including the State employ-
ment service and private agencies ) that he had formerly employed in hiring new
employees for other stores, that he used the same application and personnel forms
as in the past , and that he gave the applicants the same tests as he did for employees
of other stores . However, Weitzel did give preference to applicants with prior experi-
ence in retail sales of a department store nature, including such stores as W. T. Grant
and J . C. Penney.
Weitzel interviewed altogether 26 applicants and initially engaged 19 , but only
12 were retained after the first month-10 full-time and 2 part-time employees.
Two of these, still in the Company 's employ, had formerly worked for other food
chains. None of the employees hired was transferred from other company stores
in the Pittsburgh unit . Weitzel credibly testified that there were no requests for
transfer from other stores and that no employees were in layoff status in the Coraop-
olis area. ? The Company was actually short of help in that area in anticipation
of increased business from its plaid stamp plan which was initiated shortly after
April 9 and, indeed , engaged additional help in its food stores.
None of the hired employees received any special instructions as to their prospect
tive duties and none, except the cashiers , received any training for their particular
jobs. Cashiers in the food store receive the same training from a representative
of the Pittsburgh unit office. Employees were given the usual general instructions
regarding courteous treatment of customers and compliance with company instruc-
tions and regulations . One employee testified that when her duties were described
she was told that these would consist of "waiting on customers , cashiers , more or
less on the same order as you would in the food [store]."
D. Extension of the Meat Cutters' contract to the savings department
The Company has since 1939 recognized the Meat Cutters as the bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees in all of the food stores (at present 155 stores) in the
Pittsburgh unit. The language in the most recent contract (executed September 21,
1961, and effective until September 8, 1963), which is typical of the language con-
tained in the 11 preceding contracts between the Union and the Company, states
that the Meat Cutters shall be "the exclusive bargaining agency for all store
employees (except store managers and comanagers) which are serviced by the
Pittsburgh Warehouse in the State of Pennsylvania." 8 The contract contains a union-
shop clause requiring employees to become union members on or after their 31st
day of employment.
In accordance with the provisions of the agreements set forth above, the Company
has since 1939 extended exclusive recognition to the Meat Cutters and applied the
same contract to its employees who are eligible for union membership when it estab-
lished new stores, or relocated or enlarged old stores, in the Pittsburgh area. Follow-
ing this precedent, the Company automatically extended recognition to the Meat
Cutters as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees hired for the sav-
ings department and extended the contractual provisions to the newly hired employees.
The current contract between the Company and the Union sets forth, among
other things, the various classifications of employees (e g. clerks, cashiers, wrappers),
the wage rates prescribed for each, and the various employee benefits, including
seniority rights. The initial weekly wages established for full-time grocery female
clerks and cashiers are $82.80 and for male clerks and cashiers $91.10. Higher
7 The Company took the initiative in offering employment to one part-time employee
who worked in the Coraopolis food store but this employee declined the offer because he
received a higher wage rate in the food store.
8In addition, the Meat Cutters is recognized as the bargaining agent in certain stores
in West Virginia and Ohio.
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rates are set for other employees such as those employed in the meat department
whose wages range from $119 60 to $138.60. Seniority is established by areas-
of which 14 were in existence prior to April 9, 1962.9 Full-time employees have
bumping rights within their own stores and within their own particular seniority
areas, after which they have general transfer rights to other areas from a company-
established pool.
Article V, paragraph 35, of the contract expressly provides that "if during the life
of this agreement, the Company makes a new classification," negotiations may be
conducted for the new classification. Acting under this article and article VI, para-
graph 10, dealing with area seniority, the Company and the Meat Cutters entered
into a supplemental agreement on April 9, 1962, establishing a new and separate
seniority area (No. 15) to cover the savings department and a new classification of
clerks for that department. The weekly wage rate fixed for male and female clerks
(which includes cashiers) was $60. Personnel Manager Weitzel explained at the
hearing that the Company did not feel that the new employees should get the higher
rates applicable to the food store clerks because the work in the savings department
entailed less pressure and was lighter in nature (i.e., it involved handling light goods
such as soft goods as opposed to heavy canned goods, meat, potatoes, etc.). Fur-
thermore, he stated that the wages paid the new employees were in line with wages
paid in department and variety stores handling similar merchandise
Giving effect to the terms of the contract, Personnel Manager Weitzel informed
the prospective employees whom he interviewed that they would be required to join
the Meat Cutters on or after their 31st day of employment, in accordance with the
terms of the union-security agreement. Sometime subsequent to their employment,
Manager LeRoy introduced representatives of the Union to the employees and per-
mitted them to solicit authorization cards during working time and on company
property.10 Thereafter all of the savings department employees became members
of the Meat Cutters, paying the required dues and initiation fees.
On several occasions prior to April 9, the Retail Clerks through its agent, Best,
made informal inquiries of company representatives concerning possible representa-
tion of the newly hired employees. Best, however, never claimed that he repre-
sented the employees. The company representatives replied that their existing con-
tract with the Meat Cutters automatically applied to the new employees. On April 6,
the Company rejected the Retail Clerk's telegraphic request for an opportunity,
similar to that afforded the Meat Cutters, to enter the Company's premises in order
to solicit membership.
E. Centralization of management and administrative functions and labor
relations in the Pittsburgh unit
1. Matters centralized
The record establishes, and I find, that all hiring, firing, promotions, and other
personnel functions for all of the stores in the Pittsburgh unit, including the Family
Savings Center in Coraopolis, are centrally controlled at the unit level, under the
supervision of the personnel manager. As already noted, Personnel Manager Weitzel
himself interviewed the applicants for employment for the savings department,
applying the same practices and procedures as were used in other hirings.
Collective bargaining for all of the stores is likewise conducted at the unit level,
under the overall direction of the operating superintendent, and a single contract
covers all the stores. Superintendent Avery signed the April 9 contract supplement,
already referred to, which establishes the new wage rates for the savings department
employees 11 The Company's labor relation's representative, J. W. Cowie, likewise
operates at the unit level. In protesting the Company's failure to afford it access
to the savings department employees, the Retail Clerks addressed its complaints to
Cowie, as well as to Personnel Manager Weitzel.
0 The Coraopolis store is within area No. 7, which includes nine other stores in nearby
towns or cities.
10 The representatives included Jack Draper, business agent of the Meat Cutters, and
Grant Foster, its steward in the food store. Foster was also the head meatcutter and a
company supervisor. Subsequent to the establishment of the savings department, Foster
secured an assistant who became the steward for that department.
n The operating superintendent also represents the Company at the third and final step
of the grievance procedure (prior to resort to arbitration)-a procedure applicable to all
employees in all of the Company's stores in the unit, including the savings department
employees.
THE GREAT A & P TEA CO. (FAMILY SAVINGS CENTER) 1017
Records and reports are also centrally maintained at the unit level. All personnel
forms are uniform and cover such matters as the employees ' wage earnings , checkoff
authorizations , work history, leave, reprimands , etc. Purchase and sales forms are
likewise uniform and the store managers send their reports directly to the unit
office.
The maintenance and housekeeping functions are centrally directed for all stores,
including the Family Savings Center . The Pittsburgh unit headquarters makes the
arrangements for the performance of maintenance jobs, repairs , cleaning, and rubbish
removal. It maintains facilities for use by all stores, including a sign shop and car-
pentry shop for constructing shelving and display installations . It also handles for
all the stores such matters as insurance for theft and workmen 's compensation.
Central control over purchasing is lodged in buyers who are attached to the Pitts-
burgh unit . An assistant buyer, Arthur Mynio, handles the purchases of all nonfood
items for all the food stores in general and the savings department in particular.
Mynio supplies the managers with price lists , catalogues , and flyers from which they
may place their orders. There is no separate purchasing list for the savings depart-
ment but a few products for this department may be obtained directly from distribu-
tors. Mynio frequently visists the stores to check the movement of merchandise.
Advertising of nonfood as well as food items for all stores , including the Family
Savings Center , is controlled by the advertising and sales department of the Pittsburgh
unit. This department determines the layout , form , and contents of the ads. The
costs are paid out of the unit 's advertising budget. Exhibits introduced into the record
show that the ads in the Pittsburgh papers (which cover food stores ) emphasize sales
of food items whereas the Coraopolis newspaper gives prominent coverage to nonfood
items.12 All ads, however, have an integrated format, that is, the same page , or pages
attached to each other, cover both food and nonfood items.
The central warehouse in Pittsburgh , stores and delivers both nonfood and food
items to all of the 155 stores in the unit , except those nonfood items ( already referred
to) which are shipped directly to the savings department from the distributors. The
same A & P trucks frequently make deliveries to both the savings department and the
food department . Oftentimes savings department merchandise is stored in the
storeroom of the food department and vice versa.
Some of the merchandising and sales policies are uniformly administered in all
the stores of the unit. Most of the merchandise in the savings department is displayed
on shelves , as is the case in the food stores. Racks and tables are more common,
however, in the savings department than in the food stores due to the greater variety
of items, such as dresses and clothing , which are carried there. A similar "layaway
plan" operates in all stores . The plaid stamp program, introduced by the Company
to stimulate sales, likewise operates uniformly in all stores. At the time of its
inauguration by the Company , two salesgirls worked opposite shifts, circulating
among the customers of both the savings and food departments in the Coraopolis
store.
2. Effectuation of centralized policies at the Family Savings Center
It was stipulated at the hearing that "In connection with the operation of all stores
and departments thereof in the Pittsburgh Unit , which comprises approximately 155
stores and their various departments . . . every area supervisor , of which there are
11, and every store manager is bound by and is required to comply with at all
times, all policy, directives, determinations, and instructions from the company
offices at the Pittsburgh Unit level, governing advertising , merchandising and sales,
purchasing and pricing, personnel administration , accounting procedures , records and
reports, store administration and supervision , inventory , maintenance , and repairs,
and all other facets of store operation."
The store manager is the key company official who interprets and executes centrally
imposed policies and instructions at the store level. Ray LeRoy, who, as previously
indicated, is in overall charge of the Coraopolis store, frequently visits and confers
with the comanagers and department heads in both the food store and the savings
department. He files reports as specified by the central office, requisitions repairs,
and makes arrangements for laundry, rubbish, and garbage removal for the whole
building at 920 Second Avenue. He receives all the mail addressed to the Family
Savings Center and distributes it to the various departments in the food store and to
the savings department . Although the comanagers and department heads initially
requisition merchandise and supplies , all orders are cleared with him. He also
passes upon recommendations of comanagers concerning hiring and firing; in some
12 This may well be due to the fact that the savings department , which specializes in
nonfood items , has only recently been established in the area.
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
instances he can take final action while in others he refers the matter to the per-
sonnel manager of the Pittsburgh unit. The store manager represents the Company
in the grievance procedure ( which under the contract is applicable to all company
employees ) at the lowest level and he may submit the matter in dispute to the area
supervisor . He is also the "lowest managerial level at which an increase or decrease
in force is effectuated ." Manager LeRoy was consulted by Personnel Manager
Weitzel in staffing the savings department and by Assistant Buyer Mynio in the
initial stocking of the department. Mynio continues to check with LeRoy, as well as
his comanager , Miller, as to the type of merchandise to be carried in the savings
department.
F. Comparison of the nonfood products sold in the food stores and the
savings department
I have already described in detail the variety of nonfood items sold in the
Coraopolis food store (and other food stores of the Company )-40 out of 230 display
sections (or 17 percent of the total number of sections ) being devoted to such items
in that store . 13 In other stores as to which figures were supplied at the hearing, the
percentage of nonfood item shelves to the total number of shelves varies from 10
to 31 percent . The savings department , of course , carries nonfood items exclusively.
While the record shows that the new categories of items carried in the savings
department are but few in number-and are largely limited to television sets, electric
sweepers, stereos, copper tubing, air coolers, and women's jewelry-it is equally
clear that the savings department carries a greater variety of items, ranging exten-
sively in size, color, model, and price. Thus, for example, while the Coraopolis
food store previously sold only children 's shoes and sneakers , the savings department
now also carries a complete line of dress shoes for men and women . Similarly,
the savings department displays on its racks a variety of men's and women's clothing
which was not displayed previously in the food store.14 In fact, the number and
variety of items sold in the savings department are of such scope that the Company
has established separate subdepartments for shoes , hardware , appliances , clothing,
and other miscellaneous products.
Nevertheless, the record establishes, and I find, that practically all of the items
sold or displayed in the savings department are also available for sale in the food
stores through the various lists, circulars, and catalogues which the Company
distributes to the food store managers. The great bulk of these items may be
obtained from the Pittsburgh warehouse; a few others can be obtained only by
direct purchases from the distributor. Assistant Buyer Mynio testified that items ob-
tained directly from distributors are also available for sale in the food stores. He
further stated that a customer who sees an advertised item such as a television set,
which is carried only in the savings department, may order the same item through a
food manager who will then request a transfer of the item to his own store Thus,
as Mynio summed it up , there is no item in the savings department , or any other
store, which cannot be purchased by any customer in any store in the Pittsburgh
unit.
It is 'apparent from the record that interstore transfers in general , and the flow
of merchandise between the savings department and the food stores in particular,
is a common occurrence . Reference already has been made to the transfer of
nonfood items from the Coraopolis food store and other stores to the savings de-
partment for the initial stocking . Such nonfood items may also be transferred to
the savings department when they are not "moving" in the particular food store
or, for example , when the store has an overabundance of the supplies after the
Christmas holidays. Conversely, the savings department may transfer a particular
item to the food store when the store is short of supplies. In short, as all the parties
stipulated at the hearing, "The Company has transferred nonfood items, both from
the Coraopolis food department to the Coraopolis savings center, and that at times
it has transferred nonfood items from other of its food stores to the Family Savings
Is From the point of view of dollar volume of sales, the General Counsel accented the
Company's representation that sales in the savings department fluctuated from 7 percent
to 9 percent of the total volume of combined sales in the department and the food store
14 Another example, cited in the General Counsel's brief, is a lawn mower of a particu-
lar make and model carried in the food store. which was made available to prospective
customers only by order and future delivery , in contrast, the savings department carried
models of several manufacturers in different sizes Some of such items were available
for immediate delivery whereas others were sold on order for future delivery as in the
case of the food stores.
THE GREAT A & P TEA CO. (FAMILY SAVINGS CENTER) 1019
Center; and vice versa, they have transferred from the Family Savings Center items
to food stores."
G. Comparison of employee benefits, working conditions, and facilities in the
food stores and savings department
It is clear from the record , and I so find , that except for the contract wage
differentials already mentioned and the application of the contract seniority provisions
presently discussed , all employees in the savings department and in the Coraopolis
food store and other food stores enjoy identical contract and noncontract benefits.
Thus, the General Counsel conceded at the hearing that "the employee benefits ...
applicable to all employees working under the Local 590 [Meat Cutters] contract,
including those in the savings department , as well as other employees in Coraopolis
and other food stores, are as follows : Forty-hour week and overtime pay thereafter,
premium pay for holidays and Sundays , paid vacations , rest periods, provision of
work clothes , family death paid leave, jury duty pay, leave of absence, no discharge
without cause , seniority program, layoff notice, holiday pay, Blue Cross , Blue Shield,
life insurance , pensions , sick pay, the A & P profit-sharing thrift plan, and on Sep-
tember 9, 1962 , an increase of 10 cents per hour to all employees ...."
As to seniority, the contract on its face gives a full-time employee , in the food
stores as well as in the savings department : ( a) the right to bump employees of the
same classification within their own store and within other stores in the particular
seniority area ; and (b) the right to transfer to other seniority areas from a company-
wide pool. However , as a practical matter, these rights-except the right to bump
within the employee's own store-are to the savings department employee more
theoretical than real. Thus, a food store clerk in the Pittsburgh unit works in a
store which is part of an area comprising from 5 to 13 stores and, hence, may bump
employees not only in his own store but also in other stores ; the savings department
clerk, however , can bump only employees in his own store which , by itself, consti-
tutes a separate area. As to transfer rights to other areas from the pool, the contract
stipulates that the transferred position must be one in his "former classification "
Since the savings department employees were set up as a "new" classification with
lower wages than those earned by food store employees , it is hardly likely that this
employee could or would replace any food store employee in other areas.15
In addition to the uniform terms and conditions of employment already enumer-
ated , both the savings department employees and the food store employees are
subject to the same rules , directions , and instructions promulgated from time to time
by the central Pittsburgh office. They utilize the same grievance procedure and are
represented by the same Meat Cutter representatives in the prosecution of grievances.
All employees are given two 10-minute recesses . And the clerks in both the food
stores and the savings department wear the same type of uniforms.
As to the facilities used on the premises , except for a 2-week period prior to the
opening of the savings department (while that department was put in readiness for
the opening ), the savings department employees have punched a separate timeclock
and used a lounge, locker , and restroom within the confines of the department.is
Refreshments , including beverages , candy, and sandwiches , are available from vend-
ing machines within the department . All employees, however, have equal access to
the Company 's parking lots which surround the entire building
H. Comparison of work duties and skills of the employees in the food stores
and savings department
In general , the employees of the savings department perform basically the same
type of services as the food store employees . Like the food store clerks , the savings
department clerks sell merchandise in what is essentially a self-service operation, the
employees "checking out" purchases Both groups of clerks also stock , check , receive,
wrap, weigh, and price the products and do the usual dusting and sweeping. But
"In making the foregoing findings, I rejected the interpretation given to the contract
by company officials at the hearing and the interpretation vigorously pressed by counsel
for the Company and the Party to the Contract. In my view, the construction advanced
by Counsel for the General Counsel and the Charging Party is more reasonable There
admittedly have been no transfers of laid-off savings department employees into other
stores. Apart from any possible contractual impediment for such transfer, no savings
department employees (other than several probationary employees terminated for cause)
have been laid off in the 31/2-month period that the department has existed
"These facilities existed in this part of the building before the Company leased the
premises
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
there has not been during the 3V2-month existence of the savings department any
interchange or transfer of employees to and from the food store. The savings de-
partment employees also take turns--on the average of 1 hour a day once or twice a
week-cleaning the laundromat.17 Both the savings department and food store
employees have in the past handled the merchandise in the garden center, as this
center was at times allocated to the savings department and at times to the food
department.
As to the particular sales techniques or practices employed by the savings depart-
ment employees, the evidence establishes, and I find, that the employees received no
special training or instructions from management. Distributors supplying certain
technical products, such as stereos, do visit the department from time to time to
demonstrate their equipment and employees are expected to read the literature and
brochures accompanying the equipment, but this is also true with respect to electrical
appliances and other specialized items carried, although to a lesser extent, in the
food stores. The clerks in all stores are expected to answer customers' inquiries
(even if to do so requires interruption of other duties such as stocking, price stamp-
ing, etc.), and, if necessary, to demonstrate the equipment to the best of their
abilities.ia
It is clear, however, and I so find, that because of the wider variety of nonfood
items sold in the savings department than in the food stores, and the more extensive
lines and intricate equipment carried there, the employees of that department devote
more time to waiting on customers, to demonstrating appliances, and to engaging
in "suggestive" selling. Thus, savings department employees may assist customers
in fitting shoes and in determining the sizes and styles of dresses most suitable for
them. They may also suggest, for example, a matching shirt to trousers or demon-
strate a television or stereo set But the clerks are not assigned to handle any
particular types of merchandise and the time they devote to the sale of any par-
ticular item depends not only on the nature of the commodity but the particular
employee's personal enthusiasm for the product.19 Nor do the employees spend the
bulk of their time selling and waiting on customers. One employee testified that he
spent "perhaps one-third" of his workday on these tasks on a Saturday, the busiest
day of the week, and only "a small percentage" of his time on Monday, the slowest
day.
Conclusions
As already found, the Company has for a period of over two decades recognized
the Meat Cutters as the bargaining representative of its employees within the
Pittsburgh unit which, during the period here involved, comprised some 155 retail
stores. Throughout this period the parties automatically applied their collective-
bargaining contracts to all new stores, as well as remodeled and enlarged stores
within the unit. On April 9, 1962, the Company opened up its savings department
in a vacant space adjacent to its then existing Coraopolis food store and the parties
extended the existing union-security contract to the newly hired savings department
employees. The Company instructed its employees to join the Meat Cutters after
the 31st day of their employment, and permitted the Meat Cutters' representatives
to solicit union memberships, without affording the same privilege to the Retail
Clerks, the Charging Party. The question presented is whether the Company's
conduct, including its extension of the union-security agreement to the newly hired
savings department employees, constituted unlawful assistance to the Meat Cutters
in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act, discrimination in the hire and tenure
of the Company's employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3), and interference,
restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1). As noted at the outset
of this Intermediate Report, the resolution of this question turns on whether the
17 The laundromat is open during hours when the rest of the store is closed ; it is at
that time tended by one of the two comanagers of the savings department. The food
store and the savings department are open the same hours.
ie The food store clerks have occasion to advise customers on strictly food items also,
1 e, as to the quality and freshness of different cuts of meats, vegetables, etc Company
specialists, salesmen, and even a representative of the Department of Agriculture have
given them instructions as to particular operations.
iu Thus one female clerk testified that she has used "suggestive" selling in the apparel
section, but none in the hardware area in which she has little interest ; she normally
spends 5 to 15 minutes on shoe and dress customers. A male clerk testified that he has
a personal interest in electronics and because of this he once spent 1% hours demon-
strating a hi-fi in the home of a customer-after the sale ; he obtained all his information
from brochures.
THE GREAT A & P TEA CO. (FAMILY SAVINGS CENTER) 1021
savings department constituted an accretion to the bargaining unit maintained by
the Company and the Meat Cutters. See Borg-Warner Corporation, 113 NLRB
152, 153, enfd. sub nom. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO v. N.L.R.B., 231 F. 2d 237
(C.A. 7), cert. denied 352 U.S. 9'08; Masters-Lake Success, Inc., 124 NLRB 580,
enfd. 287 F. 2d 35 (C.A. 2). For the reasons set forth below, I find and conclude
that the savings department was an accretion, as contended by the Company and
the Meat Cutters, and not a separate or independent unit as urged by the General
Counsel and the Retail Clerks.
1. Whether or not a particular operation constitutes an accretion or a separate
unit turns, of course, on the entire congeries of facts in each case. In determining
that a newly established facility or operation is an accretion to an existing unit,
the Board has given weight to a variety of factors, such as integration of the opera-
tions; centralization of managerial and administrative control; geographic proximity;
similarity of working conditions, skills, and functions; common control over labor
relations; collective-bargaining history; and interchangeability of employees.20 Ob-
viously, cases in which all of these, or only these, positive accretion factors are
present are rare. For, the normal situation presents a variety of elements, some
militating toward and some against accretion, so that a balancing of factors is
necessary.21 In addition, in some cases the Board gives greater weight to some
factors than to others and, indeed, the presence or absence of a particular factor
may be crucial. Thus, the Board has repeatedly held that in the case of retail chain
stores, the element of administrative organization is a paramount consideration.
As the Board stated in one of the leading cases on the subject: "The Board has held,
in cases involving chains of retail stores, that, absent unusual circumstances, the
appropriate bargaining unit should embrace employees of all stores located within
an employer's administrative division or geographical area." Robert Hall Clothes,
Inc., 118 NLRB 1096, 109-8.22
2. Applying the foregoing principles to the instant case, I find and conclude that
while here, as in the usual situation, there are factors militating toward a finding
that the savings department constitutes a separate appropriate unit, these are over-
whelmingly counterbalanced by the factors supporting a finding that the department
is an accretion to the existing unit. I rely particularly on the following circumstances:
a. The savings department was evolved out of a genuine desire by the Company to
expand and enlarge upon the existing nonfood business in the food stores in order
to stimulate customer traffic and promote food sales and in order to meet com-
petition. The Company has over the years continuously and progressively expanded
this business-devoting as much as 31 percent of the shelf space to nonfood merchan-
dise in one of its food stores.
b. The parties have for over two decades bargained on a systemwide and multistore
basis and have uniformly applied the existing contract to new stores and remodeled
and enlarged stores. The contract itself establishes a comprehensive unit, comprising
all facilities "serviced by the Pittsburgh Warehouse." The savings department is so
20 See Borg-Warner Corporation, supra ; J. W. Per Company, 115 NLRB 775, enfd 243
F. 2d 356 (C.A. 3) ; Bulova Research and Development Laboratories, Inc, 110 NLRB
1036, 1041; Saco-Lowell Shops, 107 NLRB 590; Sparkle Markets Company, 113 NLRB
790; Richfield Oil Corporation, 119 NLRB 1425 ; Simmons Company, 126 NLRB 656 ;
Bargain City, U.S.A , Inc, 131 NLRB 803; The Midwest Conveyor Company, Inc., 116
NLRB 580; ef. Masters-Lake Success, Inc, supra; Chrysler Corporation, 129 NLRB 407,
410-411 ; Pacific States Steel Corporation, 134 NLRB 1325.
It Thus, the Board has found accretions to exist in the following cases, although some of
the normal accretion factors were absent: Birdsboro Armorcast, Inc, 101 NLRB 22 (sepa-
rate corporations, different products, separate accounting, separate personnel administra-
tion, variations in job classifications) ; Hudson Pulp and Paper Corporation, Tissue
Division, 117 NLRB 416 (separate work locations and immediate supervision, differences
in employee skills and products) ; Saco-Lowell Shops, supra (different products, separate
work locations, variations in job classifications) ; Bulova Research and Development
Laboratories, Inc, supra (different products, companies, wage computations, little em-
ployee interchange) ; Borg-Warner Corporation, supra (different products, absence of
bargaining history, separate work locations) ; J W. Rex Company, supra (differences in
products, job classifications). See also N L R B. v. Appleton Electric Company, et al.,
296 F 2d 202, 206 (C A. 7).
n See also The Great Atlantic d Pacific Tea Company, 121 NLRB 1193, 1194; The
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 99 NLRB 1500, 1502; Jewel Food Stores, a
Department of Jewel Tea Co, Inc, 111 NLRB 1368, 1372; Sparkle Markets Company,
113 NLRB 790, 791 ; Safeway Stores, Incorporated, 96 NLRB 998, 1000
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
serviced except for a few products purchased from distributors. There are presently
approximately 155 stores in the Pittsburgh unit The new employees in the savings
department number only 12 as compared to more than 3,500 in the Pittsburgh unit.
c. The savings department is located adjacent to one of the food stores within
the existing bargaining unit, housed in the same building under the same roof,
although separated by walls. The physically integrated character of the operation
is also evidenced by the signs posted on the premises and advertisements in news-
papers, depicting the savings department to the public as part of an all-inclusive and
integrated A & P shopping center, known as the Family Savings Center.
id. Management and administrative policies and functions are extremely central-
ized. There is common overall direction for all the stores and facilities (including
the savings department) of labor relations, hiring, firing, recordkeeping, maintenance
services, buying, merchandising, advertising, and warehousing. The personnel man-
ager of the Pittsburgh unit interviewed and hired the savings department employees.
The central office buyer buys the nonfood items for the savings department and the
food stores.
e. The manager of the food store, adjoining the savings department, is the key-
man in interpreting and effectuating the centrally determined policies, instructions
and directives in the savings department. In his absence, the comanager of the food
store has overall responsibility for the operations of the entire Family Savings Cen-
ter of which the savings department is an integral part. Although the two coman-
agers of the savings department, like the comanager of the food store, to some extent
,direct employees and deal directly with the central office buyer, they are subject to
the control of the store manager.
f. The duties and skills of all employees are essentially the same, although one of
these-selling--is more extensive and more "suggestive" in the savings department.
Like the food store clerks, the savings department clerks sell merchandise in what
is essentially a self-service operation, "checking 'out" purchases. Both groups of
employees devote the bulk of their time to routine clerical and other tasks, such as
stocking, checking, receiving, wrapping, weighing, and pricing merchandise and
,dusting and cleaning the premises.
g. Except for differentials in wages and the practical operation of the seniority
system, the clerks in both the savings department and the food stores enjoy identical
benefits such as a 40-hour week and overtime, premium pay for holidays and Sun-
days, paid vacations, rest periods, work clothes, family death paid leave, jury duty
pay, leave of absence, no discharge without cause, layoff notice, holiday pay, Blue
Cross and Blue Shield, life insurance, pensions, sick pay, and the A & P profit-sharing
thrift plan.23
h. The great bulk of the nonfood items carried in the savings department is also
sold, or is available for sale, in the food stores. While the savings department is
stocked with, and displays, a greater variety of goods, practically all of these may
be obtained-and from time to time have been obtained-by the food stores by
ordering the goods from price lists, circulars, and catalogues which are distributed
to all food stores and facilities, including the savings department.
,i. The chief source of supply for all the products sold in the savings department
and the food stores-both food and nonfood items-is ^a single central (Pittsburgh)
warehouse, which services,all stores in the Pittsburgh unit, although the savings de-
partment secures a few nonfood products directly from distributors. Deliveries to all
facilities are frequently made by the same A & P trucks. Merchandise destined for
the savings department is often stored in the storeroom of the food department and
vice versa.
j. Nonfood products are interchanged and transferred back and forth between
the savings department and the food stores, including the Coraopolis food store. A
significant portion of the initial savings department stock itself came from the Com-
pany's food stores
3 In contending that the savings department is a separate appropriate unit, and
not an accretion, the General Counsel and the Charging Party point to such factors
as .the establishment of a new classification with lower wages for the savings depart-
ment clerks; the creation of a separate seniority area for these employees; lack of
employee interchange; the use of some separate facilities, such as the timeclock and
restrooms, by the savings department employees; and the exclusive sale of nonfood
23 1 am fully aware that the extension of the benefits to the savings department em-
ployees is based on a contract whose validity is here in issue. I note, however, that the
Company also applied to these employees the same noncontract benefits which it accorded
other employees.
THE GREAT A & P TEA CO. (FAMILY SAVINGS CENTER) 1023
items-and a wider selection of items-in this department 24 As I already indicated
there are indeed in this case, as in most cases, some negative accretion factors but
these are far outweighed by the other positive factors. Moreover, as to the variations
in job classification, wages, and seniority relied on by the General Counsel, I note
that the bargaining contract between the Company and the Union had provided for
similar variations nand differentials for other groups of employees prior to the crea-
tion of the savings department. Thus, the meat department employees in the food
stores always comprised a separate work classification, were paid substantially higher
wages than the food clerks, ad, like the employees in other departments, had depart-
mental seniority. The existence of such differentials and variations among em-
ployees in the same bargaining unit is not uncommon; indeed it is typical. The point
is that these factors, in themselves, are not decisive-the entire picture must be
scrutinized to determine the appropriate unit in the particular case.
4. In the circumstances of this case, I cannot accept the contention of the General
Counsel and the Charging Party that the extended lines of nonfood merchandise and
the exclusive sale of such merchandise in the savings department, represents "a new
and different venture" by the Company into a new field-,the "discount" business.
The contention is negated by the fact that the Company had in the past carried and
sold almost all of this nonfood merchandise in its food stores; that the savings de-
partment was conceived and inaugurated as part of a continuous and progressive
program of nonfood sales, in order to ,promote the Company's food sales; that the
Company, from the very outset of the establishment of the department, held it out
as extension of its nonfood sales department in the adjacent food store; and that the
savings department has been physically established, operated, and administered as
an integral part of the Company's food store operations and not as an autonomous
and separate enterprise. "The entire record in this case points to one crucial factor:
the Employer is engaged in the same functional activity in [both] locations" (Rich-
field Oil Corporation, 119 NLRB,1425, 1427; Simmons Company, 126 NLRB 657,
658)-the retail sale of merchandise.25
5. In reaching my conclusions, I have not overlooked the point, emphasized by the
Charging Party, that the inclusion of the savings department employees in the exist-
ing unit requires these employees to join a union without affording them an op-
portunity to express a choice. I am also fully aware of the policy of the Board to
provide a self-determination election where it appears that a separate unit is just as
appropriate as a broad unit. However, as the Board has stated, "As an accretion
to an existing unit, these employees could not, under established Board policy, have
been accorded a self-determination election." Borg-Warner Corporation, supra.
See also Hawthorne-Mellody Farms Dairy of Wisconsin, Inc., 99 NLRB 212;
N.L.R.B. v. Appleton Electric Company, et at., 296 F. 2d 202, 206 (C.A. 7). "Here
as in all cases . [the Board] must balance the right of employees to select a bar-
gaining agent against the concomitant statutory objective of maintaining established,
stable labor relations." (Rohm & Haas Company, 108 NLRB 1285, 1286-1287.)
See also Hooker Electrochemical Company, 116 NLRB 1393, 1395-1396
Accordingly, in the light of the particular circumstances of this case, I conclude
that the savings department constitutes an accretion to the bargaining unit main-
tained by the Company and the Meat Cutters. Hence, the Company's conduct, in-
24 The General Counsel and the Charging Party also rely on some additional factors
which I already found did not exist . One such factor is the alleged existence of "separate
immediate supervision" in the savings department because the food store manager
(LeRoy) allegedly was only "titulary in charge" of the savings department The General
Counsel also contends that the duties of the savings department clerks were "different"
from those of the food store clerks ; I previously found that while there exists some dis-
similarity in functions, the great bulk of the tasks performed by both groups is similar.
25 Parkview Drugs, Inc, 138 NLRB 194, relied on by the General Counsel, is distinguish-
able on its face: There the Board found that certain departments leased by the employer
in a large discount center did not constitute an accretion to the existing retail sales bar-
gaining unit, noting in particular that the employer vested in the lessor virtually complete
control over labor relations policy and terms and conditions of employment (including
hiring and firing ) and, moreover, that the existing bargaining contract between the
Union and the employer was specifically limited to retail operations and not "discount"
operations Neither ground upon which the Board relied is present here Furthermore,
to the extent that it may be argued that the Company here engaged in a discount business
in the savings department , it is apparent that the Company has previously engaged in and
still engages in the same type of business in its other food stores, as an adjunct to the
food business.
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
oluding its extension of the existing union-security contract with the Union to the
newly hired savings department employees , was not a violation of Section 8(a) (2),
(3) , and ( 1) of the Act 26
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning,of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Retail Clerks and the Meat Cutters are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and upon
the entire record in this case , it is recommended that the complaint herein be
dismissed.
20 In view of the finding made herein-that the existing bargaining contract was prop-
erly applied to the savings department employees-the Company 's refusal to grant the
Retail Clerks access to the employees on company property, while affording the same
privilege to Meat Cutters, is not a violation of Section 8(a) (1). Since the contract pro-
vided that the employees shall become members of the Meat Cutters on and after the
31st day of employment , the Company was merely honoring the Union's right to sign up
employees in accordance with the union-security provision of the contract . See Laub
Baking Company , 131 NLRB 869, 871.
Chrysler Corporation and International Union , United Auto-
mobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW-CIO). Case No. 7-R-1666. February 1, 1963
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On July 23, 1962, the certified International and its Local 412 filed
a motion to clarify certification in the above case. An opposition
to the motion was then filed by the Employer. Upon considering the
matter the Board was of the opinion that the issues raised by the par-
ties could best be resolved after a hearing, and it therefore referred
the proceeding to the Regional Director for the Seventh Region for
such purpose.
A hearing was thereafter held before James R. McCormick, hearing
officer. His rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial er-
ror and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chair-
man McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
The motion for clarification, as supplemented by stipulations and
testimony received at the hearing, indicate that the issue here is
whether seven clerical employees who have recently been transferred
to jobs which are not presently included in the certified unit may
properly be treated as an accretion to it.
On May 12, 1944, the Board certified the Petitioner as the bargain-
ing representative for a technical unit consisting of designers, detail-
ers, and drafting employees of Chrysler's central engineering division
140 NLRB No. 98.