R. H. Macy and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 19, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 1502 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

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: 1
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
1 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.
DAVISON-PAXON COMPANY 1503
employees, mailroom employees, office clerical employees, cashier, main
store drivers, and main store delivery employees. The Employer con-
tends that only a unit covering all employees at its two Atlanta stores
and the warehouse is appropriate. There is no history of collective
bargaining, and no other union seeks to represent any of the Employ-
er's employees.
There are approximately 100 employees at the warehouse. In addi-
tion to those engaged in receiving, checking, marking, and storing mer-
chandise, warehouse employees deliver merchandise to customers, dis-
tribute merchandise to the stores, and service the Employer's vehicles.
There are also employees engaged in furniture repair, lawnmower
repair, rug and carpet cutting, and storage of supplies used in the
operation of the stores.'
Carey, the Employer's vice president for operations, has overall
supervision of the warehouse and of various store functions. The
warehouse manager supervises employees assigned to receiving, check-
ing, marking, and storing merchandise; furniture repair and refinish-
ing; and rug and carpet cutting. The delivery manager at the ware-
house supervises employees who are primarily engaged in routing and
delivering merchandise to customers and to the Employer's stores.
There are also supervisors at the warehouse for the employees who
service and repair the Employer's vehicles and those engaged in lawn-
mower repairs. Warehouse employees are, however, sent wherever
needed in the warehouse, including assignments to be performed under
a supervisor other than the one to whom they are regularly assigned.
Some receiving and delivery work is performed at the main store,
and there is some storage of merchandise at all the stores. The store
employees engaged in these functions are under different supervision
from that of employees in the warehouse.
Other than temporary transfers for special events, such as ware-
house sales and taking inventory, interchange of warehouse and store
employees is minimal. A few employees from the warehouse go to the
main store as part of their normal job tasks.3 Although these employ-
ees, when at the store, take routine direction and guidance from store
personnel, it is clear from the record that they remain at all times under
the control of their supervisors at the warehouse.
Under all the circumstances of this case, we find no merit in the
Employer's contention that only a unit of all the employees at its
Atlanta stores and warehouse is appropriate. There is no bargaining
history for such a unit, no labor organization seeks such a unit, and the
appropriateness of an overall unit does not establish the inappropriate-
ness of a smaller unit. Although it is apparent that there are some fac-
2 Television and appliance servicing, while under the direction of the warehouse man-
ager, is performed by outside contractors.
3 Employees from the main store perform various maintenance functions at the warehouse.
1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tors to support a finding of the appropriateness of the unit urged by
the Employer, it is equally clear that the employees in the warehouse
have a substantial mutuality of employment interests distinguishable
from those of the store employees. Thus, the warehouse, which is
located separate from the other operations of the Employer, has a
largely autonomous day-to-day operation, the employees there are
under separate supervision and there is a lack of substantial integra-
tion of employees in the warehouse with other employees of the
Employer. In addition, there are, within the warehouse, regular and
substantial interchange of employees and common supervision of
groups with diverse work skills. Accordingly, we find that there is
such a functional integration in the work of the warehouse employees
as to make appropriate a comprehensive warehouse unit, including
employees who are not primarily engaged in typical warehousing func-
tions as well as those who are.4 We therefore find, contrary to the
Regional Director, that a unit of employees at the Employer's ware-
house is appropriate.-' Accordingly, we find further that a 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.
There remains for consideration the unit placement of the follow-
ing classifications whom the Petitioner would exclude while the
Employer urges that, if a warehouse unit is found appropriate, they
should be included.
Supply department: The supply department, which orders, stores,
and distribute materials used by the Employer in the operation of its
business, is located at the main store, but two of the employees spend
a substantial portion of their time at the warehouse. The Employer
would include these two employees. These employees, however, also
spend much of their time at the main store, are at all times under store
supervision, and have a minimal amount of communication while at
the warehouse with the warehouse employees. We find, upon the entire
record, that the employment interests of these two employees are not
sufficiently close to those of the employees in the unit to be included,
and we shall therefore exclude them.
Mailroom : There are two employees at the warehouse who, under
the supervision of the warehouse delivery manager, are primarily
engaged in preparing and mailing parcel post and express shipments
to customers. Two other employees who are engaged in handling mail
pertaining to store operations are located at the main store, and their
work is directed by store supervisors. The Employer would include
all four of these employees. We shall include the employees in the
4 Compare The Wm. H Block Company, 152 NLRB 594; Sears, Roebuck & Co, 149
NLRB 1525.
See Sears, Roebuck and Co , 152 NLRB 45, Loveman, Joseph & Loeb Divasaon of
City Stores Company, Inc, 152 NLRB 719
ROBERT L. BEARROW 1505
warehouse mailroom who we find have a sufficient community of inter-
ests with the other employees in the warehouse unit, but exclude the
mailroom employees whose employment interests are allied with those
of employees at the main store.
The cashier and clerical employees: The parties stipulated to the
unit inclusion of the clerical employees at the warehouse except as to
the following, whom the Petitioner would exclude. The cashier checks
drivers in and out on c.o.d. deliveries, handles money collected on these
deliveries, and wraps and routes packages. One of the clerical employ-
ees in dispute works under the direction of the warehouse delivery
manager, typing, checking out drivers, keeping a count on packages,
and relieving the cashier. The two other clerical employees in dispute
work under the direction of the warehouse manager, processing mail
and sales checks and checking on merchandise transfers, misfilled
orders, and customer pickups and deliveries; they also work part time
in the returned goods and receiving rooms. We find that the cashier
and all three of these clerical employees, who spend part of their time
in an office but also spend considerable time in the warehouse area, are
essentially plant clericals, and, accordingly, we include them in the
unit.6
We therefore 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 Atlanta, Georgia, warehouse,
including the garage employees and the mailroom employees who work
at the warehouse, the cashier, and all plant clericals, but excluding
supply department employees, the mailroom employees who work at
the main store, office clerical employees, main store drivers, main store
delivery employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and all
supervisors as defined by the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 See Tyree's Inc., 129 NLRB 1500, 1502.
Robert L. Bearrow and Carpenters Local Union No. 1323 , Build-
ing and Construction Trades Council of Monterey County, Mon-
terey California and Paul Richards, Russ Hansen, Lee Thiltgen.
Case No. A0-86. July 24,1965
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed on June 7,1965, by Robert L. Bearrow, herein
called the Petitioner, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with
153 NLRB No. 136.
796-027-66-vol. 153-96