H. P. Wasson & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 19, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1499 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

H. P. WASSON & COMPANY 1499
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date
of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Ross Building, 112 East Cass Street, Tampa, Florida, Telephone
No. 223-4623, Extension 257, if they have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
H. P. Wasson & Company and Retail , Wholesale and Department
Store Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 05-RC-2484.
July 19, 1965
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On October 23, 1963, the Acting Regional Director for Region 25
issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding in which
he dismissed the petition on the ground that the unit requested was not
an appropriate bargaining unit. Thereafter, pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed with the National Labor
Relations Board a timely request for review of the Acting Regional
Director's Decision and Order. On December 2, 1963, the Board, by
telegraphic order, granted the request for review. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed a brief in support of its request for review and the
Employer filed a brief in opposition thereto.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch
and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the entire record in this case, with respect
to the issues under review, including the Acting Regional Director's
Decision and Order, the Petitioner's request for review, and the
briefs,' and makes the following findings :
The Employer operates four retail stores and two warehouses in the
Indianapolis, Indiana, area. The Petitioner seeks a unit of employees
employed at the two warehouses, including a rug cutter and clerical
employees who work in the warehouses, but excluding truckdrivers,
carpenters, painters, electricians, and appliance. repairmen housed at
one of the warehouses. The Employer contends that the only appro-
priate unit includes all employees in its stores and warehouses in the
Indianapolis, Indiana, area.
i The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as , in our opinion, the
record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties
153 NLRB No. 132.
t
1500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The two warehouses, referred to as the 400 and 1302 warehouses, are
located approximately three-fourths of a mile to 5 miles from each
of the stores. Employed in the warehouses are checkers, markers,
stockmen, and loaders who are engaged in receiving, marking, and
storing merchandise and transferring merchandise to the stores; cleri-
cal employees; and porters.
Wallace H. Wood, vice president and store superintendent, provides
overall supervision of warehousing activities in addition to supervising
such other activities as alterations, fur storage and repair, purchas-
ing, personnel training, and customer relations. Clyde Whelan super-
vises the operation at the 400 warehouse and reports directly to Wood.
Whelan also indirectly supervises the receiving and marking functions
in the stores. Mr. Cramer is the immediate supervisor of the ware-
housing personnel at the 1302 warehouse; 2 he also reports directly to
Wood. Although three of the four stores have storage space away
from the selling area, these warehouses contain almost 80 percent of
the Employer's storage space of this type. Some receiving work is
performed at the main store, and some checking and marking is done
at three of the four stores. In the latter three stores there are also
employees classified as stockmen who primarily move goods among
receiving, storage, and selling areas under separate supervision from
those in the warehouses. Although individual warehouse employees
occasionally help out in a store and store porters help out in the ware-
houses, there does not appear to be any substantial regular interchange
of employees between the warehouses and the stores .3
Although the overall unit alleged to be appropriate by the Employer
might be appropriate, it is not the only appropriate unit and therefore
does not preclude a finding that the unit here requested is appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining.4 Nor do we believe that, in the
circumstances of this case, the fact there is some overlapping of work
skills among some of the employees in the stores and in the warehouses
is sufficient to destroy the homogeneity and mutuality of interests of
the warehousing employees in the Warehouses.5
"The parties stipulated that Whelan is a supervisor . The Petitioner contends that
Cramer is a supervisor and the Employer contends he is merely a nonsupervisory lead-
man The record shows that Cramer gives orders and directions to the approximately six
warehousing employees in the 1302 warehouse ; he has some authority to discipline em-
ployees , his recommendations are taken into consideration at the time an employee's
salary is under review; he is the highest paid warehousing employee in the 1302 ware-
house , he reports directly to the same person to whom Whelan, the acknowledged
supervisor of the 400 warehouse , reports , and most of the time there is no other supervisor
present in the 1302 warehouse We find therefore that Cramer is a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act, and we shall exclude him from the unit
3 As to interchange, the record shows that two warehouse employees, during the 3 or 4
weeks prior to the hearing, helped out at the main store for a total of about 3 or 4 days
each , janitorial work at one warehouse is done on a part - time basis by a main store
porter , a porter from the main store fills in at the other warehouse ; and a warehouse
employee performs relief work at the main store's switchboard
4 See Sears, Roebuck and Co , 152 NLRB 45
5The May Department Stores Company, d/b/a Famous-Barr Company, 153 NLRB 341
H. P. WASSON & COMPANY 1501
Accordingly, on the entire record, particularly the facts that the
requested unit comprises all the Employer's separately located ware-
housing operations; that there is separate supervision and the lack of
substantial interchange between the employees in the warehouses and
those at other locations of the Employer; that there is no history of
collective bargaining; and that no union requests a broader unit, we
find, contrary to the Acting Regional Director, that a unit of employ-
ees in the two warehouses is appropriate.a
There remains for consideration the unit placement of various
employee classifications at the warehouses.
The Petitioner would include in the unit a Mr. Quilter who does rug
cutting for the Employer at the 1302 warehouse, and also assists with
stockwork and generally helps where he is needed in the warehouse.
The Employer's need for rug cutting is seasonal and at times during
the year very little rug cutting is clone. Quilter, the only employee who
cuts rugs, is considered a stockman as well as a rug cutter by the
Employer and works under the same direct supervision as the other
warehousing employees at the 1302 warehouse. Accordingly, we find
that Quilter has a sufficient community of interests with the employees
in the warehouse unit to include him in the unit.
The Petitioner would also include clerical employees at both ware-
houses who maintain perpetual inventory records, perform other cleri-
cal jobs needed in running a warehouse, and are under the same super-
vision as the warehousing employees. We find that these employees
are plant clericals engaged in warehousing activities and accordingly
include them in the unit.
The Petitioner would exclude from the unit truckdrivers, carpenters,
painters, electricians, and appliance repairmen who are located at the
1302 warehouse. These employees do not perform typical warehouse
functions, spend most of their time away from the warehouse, have a
minimum amount of contact with the warehousing employees,' and
do not have the same direct supervision. Accordingly, we shall exclude
the above-mentioned employees from the warehouse unit.8
We therefore find that a question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
and that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
B Cf. The May Department Stoles Company, d/b/a Famous-Barr Company, septa; see
also Lot,eman, Joseph cC Loeb, Dtt,tsion of City Stores Company, Inc, 152 NL1tI 719
Although truekdrivers were told shortly before the petition was filed that they were
expected to help out in the warehouse, they had done so not more than once or twice
prior to the hearing.
8 See The May Department Stores Company, d/b/a Famous-Barr Company , supra.
1502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All warehouse employees, including checkers and markers, loaders,
.stockmen, clerical employees, and porters employed at Employer's
warehouses located at 400 N. Capital Avenue and 1302 N. Meridian
Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, excluding all carpenters, painters, elec-
tricians, appliance repairmen, truckdrivers, all other employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Davison-Paxon Company, a Division of R. H . Macy and Company,
Inc. and Retail , Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-
CIO, Local 315, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-5634. July 19, 1965
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On September 11, 1963, the Regional Director for Region 10 issued
a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding dismissing the
petition on the ground that the unit sought was inappropriate. There-
after, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner
filed with the National Labor Relations Board a timely request for
review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order and a supporting
brief. A statement in opposition to request for review was thereafter
filed by the Employer. On October 15, 1963, the Board, by telegraphic
order, granted the request for review. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed
an additional brief, and the American Retail Federation filed an
amicus curiae brief in support of the Regional Director's Decision and
Order.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch
and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including
the Regional Director's Decision and Order, the Petitioner's request
for review, and the briefs, and hereby makes the following findings : ',
The Employer operates two stores and a warehouse in Atlanta, Geor-
gia. The warehouse is located about 7 miles from each of the two
stores. The Employer also operates branch stores in other parts of
Georgia and South Carolina which are serviced from its Altanta
facilities.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees in the Employer's ware-
house, including garage employees, but excluding supply department
i The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied , as the record , including
the request for review and the briefs , adequately presents the issues and the positions of
the parties.
153 NLRB No. 131.