Extract
Shawâs Supermarkets, 963 (2004)
Shaw’s Supermarkets and United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 791, AFL–CIO. Case 1–RM–1267
December 8, 2004DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER REMANDINGBy Chairman Battista and Members Walsh and MeisburgOn May 14, 2004, the Acting Regional Director for Region 1 administratively dismissed the Employer-Petitioner’s petition without a hearing, finding that the Union’s demand for recognition based on an alleged contractual “after-acquired” clause does not entitle the Employer to demand an election under Section 9(c)(1)(B). Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.71(b) of the National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations, the Employer-Petitioner filed a timely request for review. The Union filed an opposition. Having carefully considered the issues in this case, we find that the Employer’s request for review raises substantial issues warranting review of the Acting Regional Director’s dismissal of the petition, and we remand this case for a hearing.The Acting Regional Director dismissed the petition because the Union invoked an after-acquired store clause in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. The clause would assertedly cover a new store in Mansfield, Massachusetts. That store is the subject of the Employer’s petition. In the letter administratively dismissing the petition without a hearing, the Acting Regional Director found that the Employer has waived its right to demand an election. Relying on Central Parking System, 335 NLRB 390 (2001), the Regional Director concluded that the Union’s demand for recognition for the Mansfield store does not entitle the Employer to demand an election under Section 9(c)(1)(B).The issues in this case include:(1) Whether the Employer clearly and unmistakably waived the right to a Board election; (2) if so, whether public policy reasons outweigh the Employer’s private agreement not to have an election.We do not resolve these issues at this stage. We merely hold that they are worthy of review. Thus, the difference between our dissenting colleague and ourselves is that we would co...See the full content of this document
