Regal Thread & Notion Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 610 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Regal Thread ,& Notion Co., Inc. and Teamsters Local
Union No. 107,. affiliated with International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers ' of America, Petitioner. Case 4-RC-
11644
November 12, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On June 27, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 4 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding appropriate
a unit of all truckdrivers, helpers, shippers, receivers,
order pickers, and major customer employees at the
Employer's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, facility, but
excluding allz outside salesmen, office clerical em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Thereafter, the Employer, in accordance with Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed a
timely request for review, contending that the
Regional Director erred in excluding the clerical
employees from the unit herein. By telegraphic order
dated July 29, 1975, the Board granted the request
for review. The Employer filed a brief on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
proceeding with respect to the issue under review and
makes the following findings.
The Employer is engaged in the wholesale distribu-
tion of zippers, thread, scissors, needles, hangers, and
other items to clothing manufacturers and distribu-
tors. Its operation is located on the first floor and
basement of a building at Race and Camac Streets in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where it employs ap-
proximately 25 employees. The Employer contends
that it is a small wholesale distributor whose
operations differ from a manufacturing concern and
that the functions of its employees are integrated. It
asserts that the exclusion by the Regional Director of
its six clerical employees was erroneous in view of the
nature of the Employer's business, the similarity of
functions performed by the employees, and the fact
that the clerical employees share a bargaining history
with other employees. We find merit in the Employ-
er's contentions.
The Employer's operations consist largely of
receiving and storing merchandise, taking orders
1 The basement area 1s also used as a stockroom
from customers by telephone or by mail, pulling and
packing those orders for pickup or shipment, and
handling paperwork related to those functions. The
front area of the first floor premises of the Employer
consists of a counter area where customers may pick
up their orders, and, a general office area where the
six clericals are located, as are the major customer
employees included in the unit- and the separate
executive offices. Five of the clericals, desks are
within an enclosed partitioned-off, area; the sixth is
in the open general office area. To the rear of the
office area behind a brick partition is a 5,000-square-
foot stockroom' where unit employees perform their
duties related to the receipt and shipment of the
merchandise and the pulling of merchandise and
packing of customer orders. '
The record discloses that the Employer's clerical
employees perform a number of duties including the
billing of freight, recording of freight shipments, and
checking on United Parcel Service' deliveries and
interstate deliveries. In addition, they record costs of
freight on billing memos, do some filing, take
telephone orders, handle back orders, and follow up
on merchandise purchased by the Employer. Some of
the clericals price orders and two of them type the
invoices, but the clericals apparently do not normally
type any correspondence. The typing of letters is
performed by head bookkeeper Edyth Weiss, whom
the parties stipulated to exclude from the unit.
According to the record, two of the clericals spend
about 25 percent of their time outside of the office
area performing various functions, including pulling
and packing orders. Other clericals apparently spend
5 to 10 percent of their time handling merchandise
for orders. It is evident from the record that the
clericals in performing their duties go into -the
stockroom and frequently come into contact with
unit employees there and in the counter area. Like
the clericals, the major customer employees included
in the unit are also located in the general office area
where they take telephone orders from major
customers and price orders. In addition, they spend a
significant portion of their time packing orders, as do
other unit employees.
Although the clericals are apparently under the
immediate supervision of head bookkeeper Edyth
Weiss, any decisions concerning hiring, salaries, or
termination of clericals are made jointly by Weiss
and the Employer's president, Richard Goldstein.
The record reveals that Richard Goldstein and Vice
President Henry Friedman jointly supervise the daily
operations of all the employees. As found by the
Regional Director, all employees receive the same
fringe benefits and are eligible for the Employer's
221 NLRB No. 90
REGAL THREAD & NOTION CO.
profit-sharing plan after 3 years of service. The
clerical employees are salaried, as are the major
customer employees, whereas the remaining unit
employees are hourly paid.
Regarding collective-bargaining history, the record
reveals that the Employer was party to a collective-
bargaining agreement with the Philadelphia Dress
Joint Board, International Ladies' Garment Work-
ers' Union effective March 31, 1969, which covered
its employees and specifically provided that the
office workers would come under that agreement as
of January 5, 1970.2 Following that initial agreement,
the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement
for a 3-year period commencing April 1, 1972,
covering various economic provisions, among other
matters, and providing that the terms of the prior
agreement , except as amended or changed in the new
document, would remain in full force and effect for
the term of the new agreement. A subsequent
supplement to that agreement, received in evidence,
provided for changes in minimum wages for various
classifications of employees and specifically included
a figure for "office and clerical help." It also
provided, inter alia, for a cost-of-living increase for
"all workers" effective July 1, 1974. Thus, the record
demonstrates that the clerical employees have been
part of the unit covered by the Employer's collective-
2 The four major customer employees at that time were excluded from
the agreement by mutual agreement of the parties apparently in view of the
broader responsibilities of those employees then
3 The ILGWU disclaimed interest in continuing to represent the
611,
bargaining agreements with the . ILGWU since
January 1970.3
For the purpose of determining the unit placement
issue, we find the tasks performed by the six clerical
employees involved herein are more closely akin to
those generally performed by plant clericals than to
those performed by office clericals 4 Considering the
nature of the clericals' tasks, the overlap of tasks
between the clericals and the employees already
included within the unit, the regular close contact
between the two groups, the commonfringe benefits,
the shared supervision by President Goldstein, and
the more than 5-year bargaining history during
which the clerical employees were included in a unit
with the Employer's other employees, we find,
contrary to the Regional Director, that the appropri-
ate unit herein should include the clerical employees.
Accordingly,, the matter is hereby remanded to the
Regional Director for Region 4 for the purpose of
conducting an election in the appropriate unit, as
modified herein, pursuant to his Decision and
Direction of Election, except that the payroll period
for determining eligibility shall be that immediately
preceding the date of issuance of this Decision on
Review. [Excelsior footnote, omitted from publica-
tion.]
employees covered by its previous collective-bargaining agreements.
4 In the light of this finding, Interstate Supply Company, 117 NLRB 1062
(1957), cited by Petitioner, is inapposite.