Mandel Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 859 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of MANDEL BROTIIP.RS, INC., EMPLOYER and TiIE DEPART-
MENT STORES EMPLOYEES ' UNION, LOCAL 291 OF TIRE BUILDING
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. -13-R-3810.-Decided February 19,1947
Taylor , Miller , Busch ct Boyden, by Mr. Charles R. Sprowl, of
Chicago , Ill., for the Employer.
111 9% D. Carmell, by Messrs. Lester Asher and Joseph Gubbins,
of Chicago , Ill., for the Petitioner.
Messrs. S. G . Lippman and Arthur Swanson , of Chicago , Ill., for the
Intervenor. -
Miss Irene R. Shriber, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Chicago,
Illinois, on October 1, 1946, before Robert Ackerberg, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
that the bargaining unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate;
the Employer also moved to dismiss on the ground that it was not
engaged in interstate commerce. The motions were referred to the
Board. For reasons appearing hereinafter, the motions to dismiss are
denied. The Employer has requested oral argument. This request
is hereby denied, inasmuch as the record, in our opinion, adequately
presents the issues and positions of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relati"'ns
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Mandel Brothers, Inc., a Delaware corporation, operates a retail
department store in Chicago, Illinois. During the fiscal year ending
72 N. L. R B., No. 142.
859
860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
January 31, 1946, the Employer purchased merchandise for resale at
its store valued in excess of $5,000,000, of which approximately 85 per-
cent was obtained from points outside the State of Illinois. During
the same period, the Employer's sales exceeded $18,000,000, of which
less than 5 percent was shipped to out-of-State purchasers.
We find, contrary to its contention, that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act.'
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Eln-
ployer.
The Retail Clerks International Association, herein called the Inter-
venor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of certain of the employees of the Employer
until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Iv. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all employees in the men's
and boys' alteration department, Department 907, of the Employer's
store, including pressers, fitters, tailors, machine operators, and the
helper,2 but excluding all supervisory employees. The Employer and
the Intervenor contend that such a unit is inappropriate and urge a
store-wide unit.
The Employer's store occupies 20 floors and is divided into 290
sections and departments, the majority of which are selling and service
departments . There are 2 alteration departments on the 12th floor;
the employees in one of these departments fit, alter, and repair men's
' Matter of J. L Brandeis & Sons, 50 N . L. R. B. 325 ; 53 N. L. R. B 352 , enforced 142 F.
(2d) 977 ( C C A 8 ), cert denied 323 U. S 751 ; Matter of George B Peck , Inc, 71
N. L. R B 189 , Matter of Carson Pine Scott & Company , 63 N. L R B 1096 ; Matter of
Joseph & Loeb Loveman, 56 N L. R B 752, enforced 146 F . ( 2d) 769 (C. C A 5).
2 At the time of the hearing , no helper was employed in the men 's alteration department
MANDEL BROTHERS, INC. 861
and boys' clothing while the employees in the other department fit,
alter, and repair women's and girls' wearing apparel.3 Although
there are no partitions between them, these 2 alteration departments
are' separated from each other by a third department whose em-
ployees repair gloves and monogram and repair men's shirts. We also
note that adjoining these departments and not separated from them
by walls are the fur repair department and the dry cleaning depart-
ment. All the afore-mentioned departments, including the men's
alteration department,. occupy separate space, have their own work
fables and machines, and are under separate supervision.
The Employer seeks to justify its contention for a store-wide unit
on the grounds that its business and labor policies are centralized, that
the functions of the various departments are interdependent, and that
the working conditions, vacations, and employee benefits and privi-
leges are the same for all the store's personnel. The employees here
involved, however, are generally considered as belonging to a skilled
trade, whose duties and interests are different from those of the sales
clerks and other clerical employees who normally constitute a major
part of a department store's personnel.4 The effort here is not to
separate a fe\v employees from the unskilled clerical force of the store.
The record shows, moreover, that in April 1946 the Employer singled
out the employees in the men's alteration department for special treat-
ment by increasing their pay and reducing their workweek from 42
to 40 hours. Not until 2 months later did the Employer grant these
benefits to the other employees.
The Employer further contends that the unit now sought is inap-
propriate because it does not include the employees in the women's
alteration department whose skills are similar to those of the employ-
ees in the men's -alteration department. While the record indicates
considerable similarity between the work done in the women's altera-
tion department and the men's alteration department, there is histor-
ically a sharp demarcation between the trades involved .5 Further-
more, it does not'appear that there is any substantial interchange of
employees between the men's and women's alteration departments 6
Inasmuch as the employees in the men's alteration department are
a highly skilled and clearly identifiable group, and no other union has
8 These departments are designated as Departments 907 and 902 respectively.
4 Matter of Greenfield's Company, 54 N L R. B. 1315 ; Matter of J. L. Brandeis & Sons,
47 N. L R B 614
s Matter of May Department Stores Company, 50 N L R B 669 , May Department Stores
Company v N. L. R B , 326 U S 376, 380, Matter of Desmond's Inc, 68 N. L R B 379.
8 According to Assistant Superintendent McCloy, the Employer has encountered difficulty
in recruiting tailors for its men's alteration department with the result that during rush
seasons it has been obliged to transfer some of the tailors from the women's to the men s
alteration department.
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
succeeded in organizing them on a broader basis, we find, in accord-
ance with our usual practice in such cases, that they may constitute
an appropriate bargaining unit.'
There remains for consideration the question of the inclusion or
exclusion of two employees who work in the men's alteration depart-
ment, one of whom is a stock clerk and the other a clerical worker.
Inasmuch as these employees are not skilled clothing workers and do
no alteration or repair work on garments, we shall exclude them.
We find that all the employees in the men's and boys' alteration
department, including pressers, fitters, tailors, machine operators, but
excluding the stock clerk, the clerical employee, and all supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Mandel Brothers, Inc., Chicago,
Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall-be conducted as early as pos-
sible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direc-
tion, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for
the Thirteenth Region, acting in.this matter as agent for the National
Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces
of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by The
Department Stores Employees' Union, Local 291 of the Building Serv-
ice Employees International Union, A. F. L., or by The Retail Clerks
International Association, A: F. of L., for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.
' Matter of Carson Pirae Scott & Company , 63 N L R B 1096 ; Matter of Greenfield's
Company, 54 N L R B 13 1 5, Matter of May Department Stores Company, d /b/a Famous
Barr Company , 50 N. L . R. B. 669.