Sears Roebuck and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1942

42 N.L.R.B. 1037 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY and LOCAL 214, MAIL
ORDER , WAREHOUSE & DISTRIBUTION WORKERS, ILWU, CIO
Case No R-8979 -Decided July 29, 19.1
Jurisdiction : general meichandise mail order industry
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where there was no appropriate
unit within its scope, unit compiising "ordei clerical" employees separate from
general clerical employees held inappropi late
Mr Guy Farmer, for the Board ,
Mr Fred A Ossana, of Minneapolis, Mimi, for the Company.
Mr Douglas Hall, of Minneapolis, Minn, for the union
Miss Marcia Hertzmark, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Local 214, Mail Order, Warehouse &
Distribution Workers, ILWU, CIO, herein called the Union, alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Seals Roebuck and Company, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Charles E Persons, Trial Examiner Said hearing was held at
Minneapolis, Minnesota, on June 20, 22, and 23, 1942 The Company
and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to 'examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues 1 The Trial Examiner's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed The Company and the Union filed biiefs which the Board
has considered
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Sears Roebuck and Company is a New York corporation, licensed to
do business in the State of Minnesota. It maintains 595 retail stores in
1 The Company requested , in its brief filed with the Board , that the hearing he reopened
to receive testimony of its personnel manager who was unable to be present at the hearing
because of illness The record shows that the evidence was fully developed at the hearing
through the testimony of other witnesses for the Company The request is denied
42 N L R B, No 191
1037
1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
47 States, 10 mail order houses, and 20 factories The present proceed-,
nig involves a mail order house and retail store in Minneapolis, Minne-
sota. During the year 1941, the Company purchased for its Minne-
apolis mail order department approximately $6,000,000 worth of goods,
approximately 50 percent of which was transported to it from outside
the State of Minnesota During the same period, it purchased about
$1,000,000 worth of goods for its retail store in Minneapolis Approxl-
,mately 50 percent of such goods was purchased outside the State of
Minnesota The Company's sales from its mail order department
during this period totaled about $9,000,000 Approximately 50 per-
cent of such sales was to persons living outside the State of Minnesota.
During the same period the Company sold from its Minneapolis retail
store approximately $1,500,000 worth of merchandise of which about
20 percent was sold and delivered to persons outside Minnesota
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act
II THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 214, Mail Order, Warehouse & Distribution WToikers, ILWU,
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company
III THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union and the Company stipulated at the hearing that about
28 specific departments should be included within the unit, and that
about 15 others should be excluded therefrom They disagreed as to
9 departments which the Union desires to exclude and the Company
wishes to include In general, the unit sought by the Union is com-
posed of employees involved in the mail order, distribution, and ware-
housing operations, including all who have any connection with the
direct handling of merchandise, taking of orders, and sending out of
freight The Company contends that the employees in the depart-
ments which it seeks to have included, along with those in the depart-
ments agreed upon for inclusion, constitute a homogeneous group of
employees whose work, except for minor variations, is virtually of the
same type and is performed under similar conditions. The Union
contends that the employees of the 9 disputed departments are not
eligible to membership in the Union, but are eligible to membership
in another C. I. 0 union for clerical workers, that the Union has not
attempted to organize them because their work is not connected with -
the order-filling process, and that their conditions and hours of work
vary substantially_fromthose of the so-called order-clerical employees
who have been agreed upon for inclusion.
SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY 1039
The Company's organization is divided into operating, merchan-
dising, and auditing branches The operating departments are con-
cerned with the actual handling of customers' orders-the handling
of merchandise, storage, warehousing, filling of orders, and similar
duties The merchandising departments handle the control of in
ventories, the ordering of merchandise, and the interpretation, of re-
sults ftom operating procedures The auditing department certifies
figures, prepares statements of the Company's business, and performs
other functions related to the business of the Company. -All the de-
partments agreed upon for inclusion fall within the operating depart-
ment, as do the disputed departments, with two exceptions
The employees of the departments which the parties have agreed to
include within the unit perform a great variety of work Some of
them, such a-, the porters, engineers, merchandise handlers,-and em-
ployees of the shipping, fi eight, receiving, elevator, trucking, type-
writer repair, maintenance, and restaurant departments, perform
purely physical labor Others, designated by the parties as the order-
clerical departments, perform such duties as opening mail, classifying
orders, affixing price tickets to orders, entering, scheduling and index-
ing orders, taking orders by telephone and from employees of the
Company, and other clerical duties connected with the passage of an
order through the regular channels
The employees of the departments which the Company contends
should be included within the unit perform general clerical work,
keep records, write letters concerning adjustments and refunds,
classify and settle transportation factors involved in movements of
merchandise, follow up delinquent accounts through correspondence
with customers, keep records of time payments and credit accounts,
check invoices of incoming merchandise, collect checks, list receipts
for banking, purposes, issue and control refund vouchers, tabulate
returns of merchandise, write sales letters, and summarize results of
promotion campaigns as a basis for future policies of the Company.
These employees have slightly more regular hours than those in the
oider-cleiical departments and are genet ally required to have expe-
rience in the order-clerical departments before working in one of the
general clerical departments The Union contends that these em-
ployees are also required to exercise greater discretion than those in
the order-clerical departments Although the record bears out the
Union's contention in this respect as to a small portion of these em-
ployees, this does not appear to be true as to the majority of the
employees involved.
It thus appears that the employees whom the Union seeks to
exclude perform duties which are similar to those performed by the
order-clerical employees and that there is no basis for distinguishing
1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
between them for the purpose of determining the unit appropriate for
collective bargaining The Union's contention that these employees
should be excluded because they do not take part in the "order-filling
process does not present a valid basis for distinction Nor do we be-
lieve that the fact that the employees in the disputed departments ale
eligible for membership in another union warrants separating them
from the order-clerical employees, since no union now seeks to repre-
sent them as far as the record shows We find that the unit, requested
by the Union is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the petition is -
not appropriate, as stated in Section III, above, we find that no ques-
tion concerning the representation of employees of the Company in an
appropriate bargaining unit has arisen, within the meaning of Section
9 (c) of the Act. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives,
of employees of Sears Roebuck and Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
filed by Local 214, Mail Order, Warehouse & Distribution Workers,
ILWU, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. GERARD D REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.