National Labor Relations Board v. Retail Clerks International Ass'n, A.F.L.

Respondents are Retail Clerks International Association, AFL (herein “International”), Retail Clerks’ Union Local 648, AFL (herein “Local”), which is an affiliate of International, and certain officials of those labor organizations. From 1937 until. 1948 Local held collective bargaining contracts with Safeway .and most of, the other retail grocery store operators in San Francisco County. Local represented and its contracts covered all the employees in these stores with the exception of butchers. In the summer of 1948, during the course of negotiations with Local for renewal of the existing bargaining agreement, Safeway for ‘ the first time sought to have its “location managers” excluded from .the coverage of the new agreement. There was one location manager in charge of each of Safeway’s stores. He was the sole representative of management in the store and as such had supervisory powers and duties, but he also *761 performed, along with the rank and file food clerks (herein “clerks”), many non-supervisory tasks as a routine part of his work day.

When Local refused to assent to the exclusion of location managers from the new collective bargaining agreement, Safeway on December 31,…

211 F.2d 759 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASS'N, A.F.L. et al. No. 12434. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 2, 1954. George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Robert G. Johnson, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Louis S. Penfield, Albert M. Dryer, Attys., N.L.R.B., San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Roland C. Davis, J. D. Burdick, Carroll, Davis & Freidenrich, San Francisco, Cal., S. G. Lippman, Gen. Counsel, Retail Clerk's International Ass'n, Chicago, Ill., James F. Galliano, Oakland, Cal., for respondents. Elisha Hanson, Washington, D.C., Willard S. Johnston, George H. Johnston, Orrick, Dahlquist, Herrington & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., for Safeway Stores, Inc., amici curiae. Before BONE, ORR and POPE, Circuit Judges. POPE, Circuit Judge. 1 Respondents are Retail Clerks International Association, AFL (herein 'International'), Retail Clerks' Union Local 648, AFL (herein 'Local'), which is an affiliate of International, and certain officials of those labor organizations. From 1937 until 1948 Local held collective bargaining…

(dissenting).

I concur in the result reached in Judge Pope’s opinion insofar as it holds respondents in contempt for making the third of the four demands listed in that opinion. I think that particular demand was that Safeway bargain “for” supervisory employees (within the meaning of our decree) and was therefore viola-tive of our decree. I have become convinced, however, that in our former opinion, 203 F.2d 165 , we were wrong in holding respondents in contempt for making the other three demands set out in Judge Pope’s opinion. In pointing up the differences between my present views and those of my associates I shall focus my attention on the last of respondents’ four demands — the demand that location managers be prohibited from doing clerks’ work. This demand has become the key item of dispute between respondents and Safeway.

The nub of our former opinion, still adhered to by my associates, was the following interpretation of our decree: “It will not do to say that the demands made were solely in the interests of the clerks in the appropriate bargaining unit. The effect of our decree was to prohibit all attempts of respondents to exact concessions from Safeway as to…