Famous-Barr Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 22, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 341 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

FAMOUS-BARR COMPANY 341 to force or require The Fresno Guide, Inc., to assign the work in dis- pute to employees engaged as stereotypers who are currently repre- sented by it. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, International Stereotypers and Electrotypers Union, Local 104, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring The Fresno Guide, Inc., by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to stereotypers rather than pressmen. The May Department Stores Company d /b/a Famous-Barr Com- pany and Warehouse and Distribution Workers Local No. 688, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America ,' Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC-4843. June 2 2,1965 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 Offi- cer Philip E. Kaplan. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case,2 the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 'The petition in this case was filed by Teamsters Local 709 After the close of the hearing, Warehouse and Distribution Workers Local No 68t, filed a motion to substitute itself as the Petitioner herein in place of Local 709. Thereafter, Local 688 filed with the Regional Director a showing of interest adequate to support a petition The Em- ployer filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion and the moving party filed a reply. It is uncontroverted that the membership of Local 709 has voted to dissolve and to transfer its membership and bargaining rights to Local 688. The Employer suggests that there may have been some irregularities in the dissolution and transfer and states that Local 709 is still in existence as a functioning labor organization Counsel for Local 709, who is also counsel for Local 688, asserts that the only functions that Local 709 is presently carrying out are those necessary to wind up its affairs pursuant to the dissolution and transfer, and that Local 709, to the extent that it still exists, agrees that the motion for substitution should be granted. Since it appears that Local 709 does not wish to appear on the ballot and that Local 688 has succeeded to the rights and obliga- tions of Local ,v9, and, in addition, has itself submitted an adequate showing of interest, we grant the motion for substitution 2 The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record and briers adequately present the views and positions of the parties. A brief filed by the Petitioner, and a memorandum and reply memorandum filed by the Employer, have been received and considered 153 NLRB No. 26. 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of employees in certain named job classifications employed at the Employer's Spring Avenue warehouse or service facility in St. Louis, Missouri, whom it has rep- resented on a members-only basis for a number of years. In the alter- native, it is willing to represent any unit of employees which the Board considers appropriate so long as it is confined to the Spring Avenue facility. The Employer takes no position on the inclusion or exclusion of particular categories of employees because it contends that no unit limited to employees at the Spring Avenue facility is appropriate. The Employer operates five retail department stores. Its main store is in downtown St. Louis, and the four branch stores are located in out- lying areas. In the block next to the main store, and connected with it by a tunnel, is a building, referred to here as the St. Charles Street facility, where merchandise, mainly of the soft-goods variety, is received and then distributed for display and sale in the main store and one of the branch stores. About 2 miles from the downtown store and the adjacent St. Charles Street facility is the Spring Avenue building, consisting of seven stories and a basement, where along with other mer- chandise, large, bulky items, such as furniture and major appliances, are received and stored. Items stored at Spring Avenue are delivered to all five stores, or directly to customers who have purchased a particu- lar item from samples displayed at one of the stores. In addition to the receiving, marking, and checking of merchandise which are carried on at both Spring Avenue and St. Charles Street, each of these facili- ties contains workrooms where products sold at the stores are made or serviced. Thus, Spring Avenue has workrooms for furniture assem- bly, finishing and polishing, carpet and linoleum cutting and laying, radio and television and appliance repairs, and fur storage vaults, while St. Charles has a candy kitchen and bakery. Approximately 300 employees, exclusive of drivers and their help- ers, work at Spring Avenue. There is only occasional contact between these employees and those at other locations. Selling personnel from the downtown store participate in warehouse sales conducted for three short periods a year at Spring Avenue. During peak seasons a few selling personnel pull stock at the facility. Otherwise, there does not appear to be any significant interchange between Spring Avenue employees and other employees. Employees at Spring Avenue are separately supervised through the warehouse superintendent and his assistants and, under them, by department heads and floor managers. The warehouse superintendent FAMOUS-BARR COMPANY 343 is responsible to the vice president for operations . Buyers from the downtown store are concerned with the warehousing of their stock at Spring Avenue as it affects store sales , but the record indicates that they do not exercise significant supervisory authority over Spring Avenue personnel. Their authority is apparently limited to making recom- mendations to Spring Avenue supervisory personnel concerning its operations and personnel . The buyers are supervised by the vice president for merchandising. The Spring Avenue facility is geographically separate from other operations , is independently supervised , and there is little interchange between its employees and those at other locations . Moreover, the Spring Avenue facility functions essentially as a place where goods are received , stored in bulk, processed , and then shipped either to the stores or directly to purchasers . Approximately 225 employees out of a total of 300 employees at the facility are engaged in warehousing activities .3 The Board has recently held in Sears , Roebuck and Co., 151 NLRB 1356, that a unit of warehousing employees at a separate warehouse facility may be appropriate despite the fact that employees at other locations also perform some warehousing functions 4 Thus, the fact that there are employees engaged in receiving , marking, and checking merchandise at St. Charles and at three of the four outlying branch stores does not by itself mean that a unit of warehouse employees limited to the Spring Avenue facility is inappropriate. We are not presented in this case with the question whether a unit limited to one of several separate department store warehouses might be appropriate. Here, the St . Charles Street building appears to be utilized primarily as a receiving area for merchandise to be moved almost immediately into the stockrooms or sales counters of the adjoin- ing downtown store or of the outlying branch store which it services. The record shows that less than 3 percent of the Employer 's inventory is stored at St. Charles , as compared to more than 18 percent at Spring Avenue. While a great part of the activity of Spring Avenue employ- ees involves placing merchandise in storage areas, maintaining it, and pulling it out of stock in small lots or by individual items , which is characteristic of a full-fledged warehouse operation , the record does not suggest that employees at St. Charles perform similar functions. We find, therefore , that a unit of warehousing employees at the Employer's Spring Avenue service facility is appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining.5 3 Compare Sears, Roebuck and Co , 149 NLRB 1525 , where the service center involved was not engaged primarily in performing warehouse functions There we dismissed a peti- tion for a unit of warehousing employees comprising only 21 out of a total of 230 em- ployees at the service center 4 Compare Sears, Roebuck and Company, 117 NLRB 133 We give no weight to the bargaining history on a members-only basis in determining either the appropriateness of the unit or the unit placement of employees 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD There remains for consideration the unit placement of various employees classifications at Spring Avenue. In the A. Harris case, we established the principle that a retail warehouse unit should comprise employees performing "typical" warehouse functions.6 Accordingly, we shall exclude from the unit all employees in furniture, floor cover- ing, appliance , and television and radio repair workrooms, and those who work in the fur storage vaults,7 notwithstanding the fact that some of these employees have been bargained for in the past by the Petitioner and are included in the unit proposed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner would exclude the following categories of employees, all of whom are paid in cash, like the rest of the Employer's nonsuper- visory personnel, and share common fringe and vacation benefits. Stock clericals: Five of these employees work as aides to the floor managers of the Spring Avenue facility. They handle telephone calls and paper work pertaining to stock located on their floor. Another group of five stock clericals maintains locator files for furniture stock. There are no typists among them. Their work requires constant con- tact with other stock employees. Unit control clerks: Most of these employees work at desks in an office area located on the second floor of the warehouse. Two unit con- trol clerks work on the sixth floor, in the same area as a stock clerical and the floor manager. Their job is to maintain a perpetual inventory of stock at the facility. They spend approximately 50 percent of their time on the floor counting stock." C.D.D. cashier: She handles money collected by drivers on C.O.D. deliveries. She works in the delivery area of the facility in constant contact with warehousing employees.9 Pickup desk clerk and assistant: These employees deliver items to customers who go to Spring Avenue to pick up their merchandise. They collect money from customers in a few such transactions. They also sort mail and sales checks coming into the facility from other locations. Like the C.O.D. cashier, they do not work in the office area of the warehouse. We find that the employees in the above job classifications are essen- tially plant clerical employees engaged in warehousing functions and, accordingly, we include them in the unit. Invoice clerks: These employees work in the office area on the second floor near the superintendent's office. They check purchase orders and bills of lading, together with the physical counts of received goods 6116 NLRB 1628, 1633. See also Associated Dry Goods Corporation, 117 NLRB 1069, 1071 7 See A. Harris & Co., 116 NLRB 1628 , Associated Dry Goods Corporation , supra, Morris Hirschman & Co., Inc ., and Victor Hirschman , Bargain Annex, Inc, 111 NLRB 776, 780. 8 See Tyree's Inc ., 129 NLRB 1500, 1502 ; Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co, Lawrence- burg, Tennessee, Division, 118 NLRB 1027, 1029-1030 0 Tyree's Inc ., supra. FAMOUS-BARR COMPANY 345 made by other employees in order to determine whether to authorize payment of the account by the Employer. In this connection, they verify that the merchandise was shipped in accordance with the Employer's instructions, and that the proper discount and advertising allowance was granted to the Employer. These employees have little contact with warehousing employees and work almost exclusively at their desks. We find that the invoice clerks are essentially office clerical employees, and shall exclude them from the unit."' Nurse : She is in charge of the first-aid dispensary and also operates a photocopier. We shall exclude her from the unit in view of her spe- cialized services even though she is not a registered nurse." Cafeteria employees : These employees prepare and serve food for the warehouse employees. It does not appear that their working con- ditions or interests are sufficiently like those of employees who perform typical warehousing functions to warrant their inclusion. We shall exclude them.12 Manly Grieve runs the employment office at Spring Avenue. She hires and assigns casual help. In view of her authority to hire and to determine whether to recall employees, we find that she is a supervisor or, at least an office clerical employee, and shall exclude her from the unit. Drivers and helpers : These employees are already represented by the petitioner in a separate unit. We shall exclude them from the proposed unit, in view of their separate bargaining history. Carpenters and electricians: These employees are also separately represented in craft units and we shall likewise exclude them. Mechanics and helpers: These employees make repairs on company vehicles. We find that their work and interests are more closely allied with the drivers than with the warehousing employees at the facility and shall exclude them from the unit. 13 We find that 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 employees at the Employer's service facility at Spring Avenue and Market Street in St. Louis, Missouri, including stockmen, receiv ing clerks, checkers, markers, freight handlers, dockmen, packers, belt sorters, routers, express clerks, return-to-vendor clerks, will-call clerks, display stockmen, store supply clerks, unit control clerks, pickup clerks, parcel post clerks, stock clericals, cashiers, return-room clerks, delivery department clerks, freight elevator operators, and porters, 10 Central Cigar & Tobacco Co, 112 NLRB 1094, 1095; A. Harris & Co, 116 NLRB 1628, 1633 11111urray Ohio Manufacturing Co, Lawieneeburg , Tennessee, Division, supra, at 1029 12 Amarillo Hardware Company, Inc, et al, 148 NLRB 48, footnote 2 is Morris Kirschman & Co, Inc, and Victor Ku schinan, Bargain Annex, Inc, 111 NLRB 776 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD but excluding all employees working in the radio and television, appli- ance, furniture, and floor covering workrooms and fur storage vaults, invoice clerks and other office clerical employees'14 cafeteria employees, nurse-photocopier, vehicle mechanics and their helpers, drivers and helpers, electricians and carpenters and their helpers, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] "The parties stipulated at the hearing that the secretary to Superintendent Kelly is an office clerical employee. Druwhit Metal Products Company; A .J. Architectural Prod- ucts; Fletcher Aviation Company; and A.J. Industries, Inc. and Paul Pershing . Case No. P21-CA-5359. June 23, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On October 26, 1964, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Druwhit Metal Products Company, A.J. Architectural Products, Fletcher Aviation Company, and A.J. Industries, Inc., herein called the Respondent, had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed exceptions and an answer- ing brief, and the Charging Party filed a reply brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent herewith. The interrelationship of the Respondent Corporations is as follows : A.J. Industries, Inc., is a holding company which wholly owns, inter alia, Druwhit Metal Products Company and Fletcher Aviation Com- pany. A.J. Architectural Products is a division of Fletcher Aviation. For several years prior to 1963, Druwhit produced, as part of its busi- ness, certain aluminum curtainwall products. Because the aluminum 153 NLRB No. 35.