The Wm. H. Block Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1965

151 N.L.R.B. 318 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Neither International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO,
nor Local 1248, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
CIO, is entitled to force or require the Hampton Roads Maritime
Association, or any of its members, to assign the disputed work
to employees whom it represents who are not employed by Norfolk
Oil Transit, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D)
of the Act.
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, and
Local 1248, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO,
shall notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, whether
or not they will refrain from forcing or requiring, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, the assignment of
the work in dispute in a manner inconsistent with the above
determination.
The Wm . H. Block Company and Retail , Wholesale and Depart-
ment Store Union , AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case No. 25-RC-2602.
February 26, 1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Arthur Hailey. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Briefs were filed by both the Employer and the Petitioner.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Mc-
Culloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
' After the close of the hearing in this case , Hotel , Motel, Cafeteria , and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders ' Union, Local No. 58, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders' International Union, AFL-CIO, filed with the Regional Di-
rector a written motion to intervene and a request to be placed on the ballot should an
election be directed . On the basis of a showing of interest in the unit sought, the
motion was granted by the Regional Director . The Intervenor took no unit position.
151 NLRB No. 31.
THE WM. H. BLOCK COMPANY 319
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all food service employees at
the Employer's 50 North Illinois Street, Indianapolis, Indiana,
retail store, referred to as the Main Store. The Petitioner would
be willing to participate in an election in a more comprehensive
unit including food service employees at the Employer's service
building and Southern Plaza store, if the Board so directs. The
Petitioner would exclude the food stock employees and group
leaders Graffa and Carter, all of whom work at the Main Store,
and the candy workroom employees, who work at the service
building, but would be willing to include them if the Board so
directed.
The Employer contends that only a unit of all the selling and
nonselling employees at all its operations is appropriate. How-
ever, in the event the Board finds a food service unit appropriate,
the Employer urges that such unit should cover food operations
at all its locations, together with the food stock employees, Graffa
and Carter, and the candy workroom employees.
There is no bargaining history as to any of the employees
here involved.
The Employer operates five retail stores and a service building
in Indianapolis, Indiana. It has food operations at the Main
Store, the Southern Plaza store, and the service building. In the
Main Store, there is an employee cafeteria, tearoom, men's grill,
luncheonette, and a kitchen and bakery. Approximately 135 food
service employees work in these facilities. There are also two
food stock employees who recieve and store food. At its service
building there are an employee cafeteria and a candy workroom,
where candy is made for sale in its stores; and at its Southern
Plaza store there is a tearoom, a counter, and a kitchen and bakery.
The employees who are actually engaged in food preparation and
service receive, in addition to benefits received by other employees,
free meals and uniforms. Their conditions of work are similar
to those of other employees except that their hours of work differ
since they are regulated by the requirements of food preparation
and service.
One Griffin, a food consultant, has general supervision of food
operations at all locations. Griffin is assisted by Miss Ringo, who
is responsible for the menus and food preparation and service at
all locations except Southern Plaza, which is under the supervision
320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Miss Wineman, who reports to both Ringo and Griffin. In
addition to the usual food-handling employees at the Main Store,
there are a head hostess in the tearoom, a chef, a group leader at
the luncheonette, a group leader in the employee cafeteria, and a
group leader in the kitchen. There is a dispute only as to the
unit placement of the group leaders in the employee cafeteria
and the kitchen.
Transfers between food service operations and other jobs are
infrequent .2 In the event of temporary absences in food service
occupations, employees are transferred from other service locations.
The record, however, does not show the frequency of such temporary
transfers.
Under all the circumstances of this case, we find no merit in
the Employer's contention that only a unit of all the selling and
nonselling employees at all the operations is appropriate. Although
it is apparent that there are some factors to support a finding of
the appropriateness of such a unit, it is equally clear that the food
service employees have a sufficient mutuality of interests to justify
their establishment in a bargaining unit, apart from the other
store employees. The Board has recently reaffirmed its prior hold-
ings that a unit of employees such as that sought herein is appropri-
ate in the retail store industry.3
We also find no merit in the Employer's contention that a unit
of food service employees must encompass such employees at all
its locations. Section 9(b) of the Act directs the Board to make
appropriate unit determinations which will "assure to employees
the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this
Act . . . ." In order to effectuate this mandate, the Board has
held "that the Act does not compel labor organizations to seek
representation in the most comprehensive grouping of employees
unless such grouping constitutes the only appropriate unit.4
Although a unit of food service employees at all the Employer's
operations may be appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, there is no bargaining history for such a unit, no labor orga-
nization seeks such a unit, and the appropriateness of an overall
unit does not establish the inappropriateness of a smaller unit.
2 Discontinuance of the Riley Room , one of the restaurant operations in the Main Store,
sometime in 1964 , and the absorption of most of the Personnel affected into other opera-
tions, resulted in an unusually large number of transfers in 1964
II Arnold Constable Corporation, 150 NLRB 788 ; Allied Stores of New York, Inc ,
d/b/a Stern's, Paramus, 150 NLRB 799. See also Allied Stores of 0hao, d/b/a
A. Polsky Company , 90 NLRB 1868, 1869 , Thalhimer Brothers , Incorporated, 93 NLRB
726; F. W. Woolworth Company, 144 NLRB 307.
4 Montgomery Ward & Co ., Incorporated, 150 NLRB 598 ; Bagdad Copper Company,
144 NLRB 1496; P. Ballantsne d Sons, 141 NLRB 1103 ; Quaker City Life Insurance
Company, 134 NLRB 960 , enfd. on this point, 319 F. 2d 690 (C A. 4).
THE WM. H. BLOCK COMPANY 321
Therefore, as the food service employees at the Main Store are
geographically separated from the Employer's other establishments
where food service is carried on, the extent of interchange among
these employees at the different locations is not substantial, there
is an internal cohesiveness among these Main Store employees,
there is no bargaining history in a more comprehensive unit, and no
labor organization is here seeking to represent such employees on
a broader basis, we find that a unit of food service employees at
the Main Store is appropriate.5
The Petitioner would exclude the following categories whereas
the Employer would include them :
Food stock employees : The two food stock employees work in
the subbasement at the Main Store, where they receive and store
food stock which is used at the various restaurant facilities. In
view of the fact that these employes handle food materials and
share common supervision with food service employees, we shall
include them in the unite
Group leaders Graffa and Carter: These two individuals are the
group leaders in the employee cafeteria and the kitchen, respectively.
The record shows that both of them assign work, arrange overtime,
transfer employees, and are concerned with such employee problems
as days off and tardiness. In view of their authority to carry out
these functions, and the fact that, if Graffa and Carter are not
supervisors, there is, as far as the record shows, no immediate
supervisor in the employee cafeteria or in the kitchen of the Main
Store, we find that they are supervisors within the meaning of
the Act, and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
All regular full-time and part-time food service employees at the
Employer's 50 North Illinois Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, retail
store, including food stock employees, but excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards,
group leaders in the Employer's cafeteria and kitchen, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 Sav-on-Drugs, Inc., 138 NLRB 1032, 1034-1035; Piggy Wiggly California Company,
144 NLRB 708.
6 Member Brown would exclude the food stock employees on the grounds that they
handle food only for storage, do not participate in food preparation or service, do not
receive free meals and uniforms as do the food service employees, and would appear to
have a greater community of interest with stock employees in general than with the food
service employees here involved.
783-133-66-v of 151-22