Polk Brothers Central Appliance and Furniture Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 1, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 251 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

POLK BROTHERS CENTRAL APPLIANCE 251
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with Lodge 1017 of District 64, Inter-
national Association of Machinists, A, F. L., as the exclusive representative of all our
mechanics, bodymen, painters, helpers, janitor, motorcycle driver, and stock clerks,
but excluding executives, office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act. If an understanding is reached, we will embody
such understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL NOT, by refusing to bargain collectively, by unilaterally changing bargain-
able terms or conditions of employment, or by bargaining directly and individually with
employees, or by any like or related action, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist Lodge 1017 of District 64. International Association of Machinists,
A. F. L., or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activi-
ties, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming members of the
above-named union, or any other labor organization, except insofar as membership may be
lawfully required pursuant to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
CRUSE MOTORS, INC.
Employer.
Dated . ............... By..............................................................................................
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
POLK BROTHERS CENTRAL APPLIANCE AND FURNITURE
COMPANY and WAREHOUSE AND MAIL ORDER EMPLOY-
EES UNION, LOCAL #743, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3113.
June 1, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Virginia M.
McElroy, hearing officer. 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
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson ] .
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 organizations involved claim to represent
employees of the Employer.
105 NLRB No. 37.
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. No question affecting commerce exists 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, for the following reasons:
The Petitioner sought in its petition to represent only the
Employer's furniture salesmen and, at the hearing herein,
sought alternatively to represent all the salesmen . The Inter-
venor, Retail Clerks International Association , Local 1515A,
AFL, and the Employer contend that their contract , covering
all the salesmen and expiring June 30, 1954, is a bar to this
proceeding.
The Employer operates 5 stores in a 2-block area, referred
to as "Polk City," and 2 branch stores , all in Chicago. The
"Polk City" stores, each under a "floor manager ," and the
branch stores, each under a store manager , are closely
supervised by the executive officers of the company, including
6 members of the Polk family and Vice-President Hellmann,
the personnel manager . All hirings and discharges are subject
to the approval of this top management , and all personnel
records are maintained in the central office . All the salesmen
work the same hours and receive the same employment bene-
fits . Although separate meetings for furniture and appliance
salesmen' are held in various stores when the need arises, the
salesmen meet together every 2 or 3 weeks in general sales
meetings . At the 2 branch stores, the salesmen "have the run
of the store and are thereto sell all the products of the store,"
including appliances and furniture.2 Like the other employees,
who are represented by other unions, the salesmen have been
in the past and are currently represented on a companywide
basis . Because of the closely integrated operation of the 7
stores located in the same city, the salesmen' s similar work-
ing conditions and community of interest , and the history of
bargaining ,3 we find that a companywide unit of salesmen, as
urged alternatively by the Petitioner at the hearing , is appro-
priate . However, as we find no basis for establishing a separate
unit of furniture salesmen, other than that of extent of organi-
zation, which is precluded by Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act, we
find that such a unit is inappropriate.
We next consider the contract-bar question . The Employer
and the Intervenor executed a 2-year contract on July 1, 1952,
covering all the salesmen . Although this contract contained a
union-shop provision , the Intervenor was not then in com-
pliance as required by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. The contract
was therefore no bar to the petition whichwas filed on Decem-
ber 2, 1952, herein . But on December 8 the parties to the con-
tract entered into a supplemental agreement , nullifying the
union-security provision until the Intervenor received notice
i As 95 percent of theEmployer ' s sales consist of household appliances , the appliance sales-
men greatly outnumber the furniture salesmen.
2 Furniture is sold only at the 2 branch stores, and at 3 of the 5 "Polk City" stores.
3 The Employer first recognized the Intervenor as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
salesmen on March 29, 1950.
SQUARE D COMPANY 253
of compliance . This agreement effectively suspended the
union-shop provision , thereby legalizing the contract and making
it a bar as to any new petition.4
As we have noted above , the unit of furniture salesmen sought
by the Petitioner in its December 2 petition is inappropriate,
and the Petitioner did not seek to represent all the salesmen
until the February 12 hearing . The Board has held in an
analogous situation ,5 where the amendment at the hearing
"clearly claimed a unit larger and substantially different
from that sought in the original petition ," that a contract exe-
cuted after the filing of the petition but before the amendment
was a bar to the proceeding . Here, the alternative contention
at the hearing for a much larger , and substantially different,
unit constitutes a new claim or petition , which we find to be
barred by the outstanding contract , as supplemented on
December 8 . Accordingly , we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
4Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Incorporated, 97 NLRB 597.
The Intervenor came into compliance on December 22, 1952, and the union - security pro-
vision thereafter lawfully went into effect . The reinstatement of the union - security provision
was thus in conformity with the Act. Cf. Hughes- Vertin Lime Company, 104 NLRB 185.
5American Suppliers , Incorporated , 98 NLRB 692, 694.
SQUARED COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE), LOCAL 1421,
INDEPENDENT . Cases Nos . 21-CA-956 and 21-CA-1106.
June 2, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 25 , 1952, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued
his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint , as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the General
Counsel and the charging Union filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report , with supporting briefs . The Respondent fileda
brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
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 Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs,
and entire record in the case, and to the extent not inconsistent
with the findings and conclusions made below , hereby adopts the
Trial Examiner ' s findings , conclusions , and recommendations.
1. The complaint in this case , as explicated by the General
Counsel's bill of particulars, alleges a number of violations of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, extending over a period starting in
March 1950 and reaching to November 1951 . Before issuance
105 NLRB No. 25.