G. Fox & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 1080 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. Fox & Co., Incorporated and Truck Drivers Local 671, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner. Cases Nos. 1-
EC-8392 and 1-RC-8393. November 22,196
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed wider Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Orlando Rodio. The. Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing 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.' the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the, Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer operates a retail department store on Main Street,
Hartford, Connecticut, comprising a main store, a service building
-connected to the main store by nine bridges and two tumnels, and an
extension 'uilding attached to the main store by a three-level bridge
and a four-level bridge. In addition, there are two small warehouses,
one on _'_,7orth Front Street, Hartford, two blocks from the. main store,
and the other located 2 miles from the main store on Clary Street in
East Hartford.
In case No. 1-RC-8392, the Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of
all package delivery men, bulk delivery men, and bulk helpers
employed by the Employer at, its Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut,
service building.- Ii? the alternative. Petitioner wand re-present in a
single unit. all inside package deliver-v men, package deliver- men.
inside bulk deliver- men, bulk delivery men, and bulk delivery helpers
employed by the Employer at its Main Street. Hartford, Connecticut,
service building.
1 The Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs which have been considered by the Board
in making its decision in this case.
2 The Petitioner originally filed for a unit of all drivers. warehousemen , and helpers
employed at the Company's warehouses in the Greater Hartford area . At the close of the
hearing. Petitioner amended the petitioner to the unit sought above.
155 NLRB No. 78.
G. FOX & CO., INCORPORATED 1081
In case No. 1-RC-8393, the Petitioner seeks to represent a separate
Unit consisting of all mechanics and washers employed by the
Employer at its service building garage located on. Main Street, Hart,
ford, Connecticut.-3
The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one com-
posed of all its employees, selling and nonce-lling. The Board has
repeatedly said that while a storewide unit is presumptively appro-
priate for collective bargaining, it is not the only appropriate unit .4
There is no bargaining history for the. employees involved in this
proceeding and no union seeks to represent the. employees of the
Employer in a single store-wide, unit.
The Employer employs about %,800 persons, of whom approximately
300 are executives and supervisors. Thera are 109 selling departments
and 86 nonselling departments. For administrative and operational
purposes, the store is divided into four sections consisting of mer-
chandise and promotion, finance. and control, personnel and opera-
tions, and store properties and planning. The operations of each
section are directed by a. vice president who reports directly to the
company president.
The main store is occupied principally by the selling departments,
but also has offices, lounges, eating areas, auditoriums, and some stor-
age space. The extension building is used for fixture storage and is
operated by the maintenance department. No selling facilities are
located in the extension building. The Clark Street warehouse is used
for storage, primarily of furniture stock, and is manned by two men.
The North Front Street warehouse is primarily used for storage, but
also contains some. service facilities, including the radio-television and
major appliances service shops. Most of the work in the service build-
ing consists of typical warehouse activities, lnclti:ling receiving, mark-
ing, and storage of goods, and the wrapping and shipping of goods to
customers. In addition, it contains the upholster: , drapery, rug and
fur workshops, furniture finishers, dyeing. and fur storage. Some
selling is done in the service building.
The delivery department, consisting of package delivery n en, inside
package delivery men, bulk del ivery men, bulk delivery helpers, and
inside blllk delivery men, work in the service building, under the s1_Lpel'-
vison of Paul Krogh. Krogh reports to Addison, warehouse superin-
tendelht,,who reports to Berins, vice president in charge of personnel
and operations. One other department is under the supervision of
8 The original petition filed jr. this case was for a unit of all garage mechanics, helpers,
repairmen , including tiremen and bodymen. This was amended at the close of the hearing
to -a unit comprised of those described above.
4 Lord d Taylor, etc., 150 XLRB 812; Arnold Constable Corporation, 150 NLRB 788;
Allied Stores of New Yorl,, Inc. d/b/a Stern's , Paramus, 150 NLRB 799: lfontgomery
Ward e, Co., Incorporated, 150 NLRB 598; J. W. 'fags, Inc., 147 NLRB 968.
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Krogh, but there are no permanent employees assigned to it. It is
designated as a separate department solely= for accounting purposes.
The function of this department is to transfer goods from the two
warehouses to the main compound. Employees from any of the above
groups or other stock or warehouse employees perform such work.
The package delivery drivers -work out of the first floor of the serv-
ice building. These drivers receive the packages for their route in bins
-which have been prepared by the deli ery of the wrapped merchandise
to such bins by the inside package delivery men. The drive-r backs the
truck up to. the bin, loads the truck, makes the deliveries to the custom-
ers, and returns to the store upon completing his deliveries. The driv-
ers return to the store at any time from mid-afternoon to 8 o'clock in
the evening. It is estimated. that, the package delivery drivers spend
from 60 to 90 percent of their time away from the store. The bulk
delivery drivers, who work out of the sub-subbPsement of the service
building, follow the same procedure, generally with respect to heavier
and bulkier merchandise. They have bulk helpers who aid in loading
the truck and in making the deliveries. These drivers and their help-
ers also spend from 60 to 90 percent of their time away from the store.
The inside bulk delivery men route the goods.to the bins from which
the trucks are loaded. There is little: contact between the inside pack-
age and bulk delivery men and the drivers and their helpers. While
certain employees in the drapery. rug. upholstery-, and appliance serv-
ice departments drive trucks, they do so only as an incident to- their
principal functions of sales and service -which are carried on under
the direct supervision of their respective department heads.
The unit sought consists of truckdrivers and their helpers. The
Board has found similar units in department stores appropriate, par-
ticularly where, as here, there is no history of collective bargaining,
and no union seeks to represent them in a storewide unit. VVe so find
in the instant case.
Mechanics and -washers comprise the unit sought by Petitioner in
Case No. 1-RC-8393 and are grouped under the store department
designation of garage maintenance. They occupy the north-west cor-
ner of the basement of the service building. There arei seven men in
this department, of whom one is a washer. The principal work of this
department consists of total maintenance of the Employer's automo-
tive equipment from tirework up to and including major overhauls.
The garage mechanics also do some work in other parts of the store
where their special skills are needed. This includes such work as cut-
ting and welding of heavy metal and the repair of lawnmowers and
snow blowers. The great majority of their working time, however;
is spent on the trucks.
5 J. L. Brandeis & Sons, Inc., 142 NLRB 825.
G. FOX & CO., INCORPORATED 1083
In Diamond T. Utah. Inc., 124 NLRB 966, The Board, in granting
a unit of employees engaged in the service and repair of trucks, stated:
tine present-day automotive engine is a highly complex and
complicated machine and that it requires increasing know-how
and skill to adjust and maintain this machine. Because of the
inherent nature of the work tasks performed by the mechanics
here involved, and even taking into account the absence of such
on-the-job training or apprenticeship programs. we find that the
mechanics and their helpers in this case are primarily engaged in
the performance of tasks requiring the use of craft skills and, as
such, constitute a craft miit for the purpose of collective bargain
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The employees in the instant case are performing the work requiring
essentially: the, same skills as the employees involved in the. Diamond
T. Utah case. They work under supervision separate from that of
any other employees of the Employer and perform the principal
amount of their work in a separate area. No union seeks to represent
them in a broader unit, and there is no past bargaining history. These
factors warrant the finding that mechanics and washers form a homo-
geneous and identifiable group of employees with a sufficiently dis-
tinct and separate community of Interests to constitute a separate
appropriate bargaining unit..6
The issue is raised as to the supervisory status of S. Testa, an
emploI in gara maintenance. The Employer maintains thatge
Testa is not a. supervisor, whereas the petitioner contends that he is.
Testa is in charge of the mechanics when the regular supervisor is
away and assigns work during this period. He has no title, cannot
recommend discipline, and is not consulted on wage increases, dis-
charge, or other personnel matters. He is paid on an hourly basis plus
premium pay for overtime. On the basis of the above foregoing, we
are not persuaded that even though Testa assigns work during Whip-
ple's absence, he is required to exercise that degree. of independent
judgment necessary to meet the statutory standards of a supervisor
under that Act.7 Accordingly, we conclude that Testa is not a super-
visor and is to be included in the unit of mechanics found appropriate
by the Board.
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
appropriate units for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
6In Montgomery 'Ward & Co., Inc ., supra, the automotive service department employees
were granted a separate unit in the light of special skills, separate supervision , different
work areas , lack of selling function , and the fact that no union sought to represent them
In a broader unit. See also J. C. Penney Company, Store No. 139 , 151 NLRB 53, where
a separate unit comprised of automotive repair workers was deemed appropriate.
5Sanborn Telephone Company, Inc., 140 NLRB 512.
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All package delivery men , bulk delivery men, and bulk delivery
helpers employed by the Employer at its Main Street, Hartford, Con-
necticut:; service building excluding all other employees, guards, pro-
fessional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
All me-chanic-s and washers employed -by the Employer at its service
building ga-rage located on Main Street, Hartford , Connecticut, ex-
cluding all other employees , guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Humble Oil & Refining Company and Everett Refinery Independ-
ent LTnion, affiliated with Local Union No. 68, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America . Case No. 1-PC-878. November 22, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Peter W. Hirsch. The Hearing Off'icer's rulings made at the hearing
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
%
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.1
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (^T) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit which it described in various ways at
the hearing, and which it described in its brief to the Board as all
'At the hearing, the Employer and the Intervenor refused to stipulate that the Peti-
tioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. As the
record shows that the Petitioner exists for the purpose of representing employees in col-
lective bargaining and admits employees into membership , we find that it is a Labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
Esso workers Union , Inc., herein referred to as the Intervenor , was permitted to inter-
vene on-the basis of its contract interest.
155 NLRB No. 99.