Saks & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 24 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Saks & Company and United Storeworkers, Retail,
Wholesale Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, Pe-
titioner. Case 2-RC-15926
June 8, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officers Lawrence Din-
erstein and Haywood Banks . Following the hearing
and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations and State-
ments of Procedure, Series 8 , as amended, this case
was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board for decision. The named Employer and the
Petitioner filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officers' rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the National
Labor Relations Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The Petitioner is an organization claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question concerning commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of ap-
proximately 448 nonselling employees at the
Employer's main store located at 611 Fifth Avenue
and its service center at 450 West 15th Street , both in
New York City. The specific employees sought by the
Petitioner are the bulk packers, platform clerks, bulk
checkers, markers, merchandise inspectors, consoli-
dators, manifestors (those handling merchandise but
not those handling vendor receipts), inspection bulk
packers, stock employees, loaders, parcel post clerks,
inspection wrappers, carriers, and mail and messenger
clerks. The Union alternatively supports the unit
sought on the basis of common job function-mer-
chandise handling-and/or the negative characteris-
tic that none of the employees sought perform any
selling function.
The Employer, however, contends that the unit
sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate inasmuch as
it constitutes a fragmentation of the Employer's work
force. The Employer contends that the appropriate
unit should encompass all selling and nonselling em-
ployees including clericals at both locations. The Em-
ployer further argues that the groups of nonselling
employees sought by the Petitioner have diverse skills
and duties and do not share sufficiently distinct com-
munity of interest, apart from other store employees.
In determining the appropriateness of a unit of em-
ployees, the Board has traditionally considered a
number of factors. These factors include the similarity
or difference in employee wages, benefits, location,
treatment, training, supervision, rating, dress, and job
function.
In the case at hand, the Employer has only two
facilities in New York City. The Fifth Avenue store is
a retail operation engaged in selling a wide variety of
clothing, accessories, and certain specialty items. This
store also serves as headquarters for a nationwide
system of stores, all carrying the trade name of Saks
Fifth Avenue. It is housed in an 11-story building and
in several adjoining buildings. The store is divided
into 12 divisions, with 9 selling floors, housing some
100 selling departments. The 15th Street service center
provides warehouse facilities, various support serv-
ices, and a distribution operation for the stores out-
side of New York City.
The employees in the unit sought by the Union
share no common work area separate from other em-
ployees. In addition to the approximately 147 stock
employees who work in the various selling depart-
ments, there are 92 inspector wrappers who work be-
hind the sales counters, working directly with the sales
employees and wrapping individual purchases. The
remaining employees sought by the Petitioner work in
the basement of the Fifth Avenue store or at the 15th
Street facility.
The record indicates that all employees go through
the same interview process. They all start at the same
wage rate, share the same employee benefits, and are
given the same initial training. Also, as few selling
employees are paid on commission basis, the mode of
compensation for most employees is the same. Al-
though the selling personnel, the inspector wrappers
and certain other groups, are given some special in-
struction, all employees are the recipients of a contin-
uous on-the-job training program.
Concerning supervision, the evidence shows that
not only is there no common line of supervision
among the employees sought, but that it is common
practice for selling and nonselling employees to be
subject to the same immediate supervision. In fact, the
largest single group of employees sought by the Union
consists of the stock employees who work in the vari-
204 NLRB No. 5
SAKS & COMPANY
ous selling departments on the nine floors at the Fifth
Avenue store . These employees work in the same de-
partments as the selling employees and are under the
same supervision as other department personnel.
For purposes of promotion and transfer , all em-
ployees are regularly rated both by supervisors and
individuals who serve in the capacity of personnel
counselors . In both instances , the same individuals
rate both selling and nonselling employees following
the same basic rating systems . It would also appear
that all employees have the same opportunity for pro-
motion and transfer . In any event , there is evidence
that transfers from one department to another , as well
as from selling to nonselling , are common . Thus, it is
not unusual to find employees who start in stock,
transfer to selling, return as a head of stock , go back
to selling , and then progess to the management pay-
roll.
Although the Employer no longer follows any rigid
dress regulations , the selling employees are required
to wear ties , coats , dresses , or pant suits . The nonsell-
ing employees-both those sought and those not
sought-are not required to follow any dress stan-
dards unless they are on the selling floor. While on the
selling floor , any nonselling employee is instructed to
wear either a smock provided by the Company or
dress suitable for appearance on the selling floor.
There appears to be little similarity of job function
between the employees in the unit sought . Some are
truckloaders , consolidators, and bulk packers, but
they appear to have little in common with the inspec-
25
tor wrappers and stock people on the selling floor.
Rather, these bulk handlers would seem to have more
in common with excluded classifications such as re-
turn goods clericals, who regularly handle bulk mer-
chandise.
On the basis of the record before us , we find little
to support the assertion that the employees sought
share a separate community of interest based on the
factors considered above . In fact , the record indicates
that they perform dissimilar functions , work through-
out the entire store and service center , and do not
share any common supervision . Thus we are unable
to find that the unit sought is appropriate on the basis
of similarity of job function.
Nor are we able to find that the unit is supportable
as a nonselling unit. The unit does not, for instance,
include the trimmers, sewers , or customer service,
print shop or cafeteria employees , all of whom must
be considered nonselling . In fact, in view of the close
similarity of working conditions, working benefits,
and close contact between the selling and nonselling
employees , the Employer's operation appears to be
more closely integrated than other retail estab-
lishments . Thus , we conclude , in the circumstances of
this case, that the requested unit is inappropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining . Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.