Retail Employee Relations Commission

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 351 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

RETAIL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSION 351
group leaders, but excluding guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election7 omitted from publication.]
6 This is the identical bargaining unit which the Board found appropriate in the 1950
proceeding.
70n January 14, 1953, the Board in Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 102 NLRB 270,
directed that a self-determination election be conducted among the patternmakers at the
South Philadelphia Works to determine whether they desired to be represented as a separate
bargaining unit or remain a part of the existing hourly paid production and maintenance
unit represented by the UE. In the subsequent election they indicated that they desired to
remain in the overall unit, and on February 11, 1953, the Regional Director issued a certifi-
cation of results of election to such effect. The UE here contends that under the provisions
of Section 9 (c) (3) no election affecting these employees can be directed at this time We
reject this contention as the election herein directed is not in the unit or a subdivision of the
unit in which that election was held. See Robertson Brothers Department Store, 95 NLRB
21.
On September 18, 1953, the IUE moved that the name of the UE be excluded from the
ballot on the ground that the record establishes that the UE will not represent in the presen-
tation and processing of grievances any employees who are not members of the UE We
do not find that the record supports this contention Accordingly the motion is hereby denied.
RETAIL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSION, Petitioner
and BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL NO.
64, A. F. OF L. and RETAIL CLERKS' UNION, LOCAL NO.
2, A. F. OF L. Case No. 18-RM-139. December 15, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard P.
O'Connell, hearing officer. The hearing officer's r•ilings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation:
Building Service Employee's Union, Local No. 64, A. F. of L.,
herein called Local 64, has represented employees of the
Employer in the classifications involved herein since 1939. The
most recent contract between the Employer and Local 64 ex-
pired on April 30, 1953. In June 1953 Retail Clerks' Union,
1 At the hearing, Local 64 moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Employer is
attempting to establish a "multiple employer" unit for which there is no history of direct
collective bargaining between all of the members of the Employer's Association and Local 64
For the reasons indicated in the text below, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
107 NLRB No 97.
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local No. 2, A. F. of L., herein called Retail Clerks, which
currently represents employees of the Employer inclassifica-
tions other than those involved here, claimed to represent the
employees represented by Local 64. On May 19, 1953, Retail
Clerks withdrew its claim. On August 20, 1953, Retail Clerks
reasserted its claim to represent such employees, but at the
hearing, for the second time, withdrew such claim.
On these facts, and also because of the unit issue between
the Employer and Local 64 described below, we find that a
question concerning representation exists within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Employer, an association of 23 retail department and
specialty stores in St. Paul, Minnesota, contends that the ap-
propriate unit consists of all janitors , watchmen, matrons,
window washers, and passenger elevator operators in all
member stores of the multiemployer association. Local 64
contends that the unit should be confined to the 5 member
stores which had signed the latest contract between the Em-
ployer and Local 64 covering building service employees, and
which, as stated above, expired on April 30, 1953. Local 64,
however, has indicated its willingness to represent building
service employees in an associationwide unit should the Board
find such a unit appropriate.
In 1937, the Employer P voluntarily recognized Retail Clerks
as the bargaining agent of an associationwide unit covering
employees in almost all classifications employed by the
member stores, the principal exclusions being craft groups.
Included in that unit were the building service employees
herein involved. In 1939 Retail Clerks disclaimed interest in
the building service employees, but has since continued to
represent the other employees covered in the original contract
on an associationwide basis.
Since 1939, building service employees inthemember stores
of the Employer have been represented continuously by Local
64. The Employer and Local 64 have negotiated 10 bargaining
contracts covering such employees, which have been signed by
from 3 to 9 members of the Employer, as well as by the Em-
ployer and Local 64. As indicated, 5 member stores were
signatories to the latest contract. Whenever contract changes
were negotiated by the Employer and Local 64, all member
stores were notified of such changes.
In 1943, and again in 1951, the Employer, acting on behalf of
all member stores of the Association, and Local 64 jointly
petitioned, respectively, the War Labor Board and the Wage
Stabilization Board regarding the wages of the building service
employees employed in the member stores.
2 In an earlier case, the Board found that the Employer possesses sufficient authority to
engage in collective bargaining on behalf of its members and is an Employer within the
meaning of the Act. See Retail Employee Relations Commission, 80 NLRB 1473, 1474.
RETAIL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSION 353
In the recent Seagram case, 3 which involved an issue as to
the appropriateness of a multiplant unit, the Board indicated
with respect to employees concerning whom there was no
bargaining history that "bargaining history for one group of
organized employees, although persuasive, should not in-
variably control the bargaining pattern for every other group
of unorganized employees." That principle is equally applicable
in a case like the instant one, where a multiemployer group is
concerned.' However, in the instant case, there is abargaining
history with respect to the building service employees which,
although indicating the one time acceptance, and nowappropri-
ateness, of an associationwide unit, is nevertheless equivocal.
In such a situation we are accordingly constrained to attach
somewhat greater weight to the bargaining history of other
organized employees. In view, therefore, of the bargaining
history with respect to the employees who have in the past been
represented by Retail Clerks, as well as the bargaining history
of the building service employees here involved, and because
Local 64 has indicated its willingness to represent building
service employees on an associationwide basis, we have con-
cluded that an associationwide unit is here appropriate.
Except for the unit placement of watchmen, the Employer and
Local 64 are in agreement as to the composition of the unit.
They disagree as to the effect upon unit placement of the
varying amounts of time which watchmen in the different stores
devote to monitorial duties. However, without regard to the
arguments of the parties in this respect, we note that there is
no indication that all the watchmen involved do not perform
monitorial duties regularly. Accordingly, we shall exclude
watchmen from the unit.5
We find that all janitors, matrons, window washers, and
passenger elevator operators employed in the retail department
and specialty stores which are members of the Retail Em-
ployee Relation Commission in St. Paul, Minnesota, but ex-
cluding all other employees, watchmen, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit for the purpose
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
SJoseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 101 NLRB 101.
4See Lownsbury Chevrolet Company, 101 NLRB 1752
5See Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383.