Sears, Roebuck and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 3, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1395 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY 1395 SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY and A. F. of L. JOINT ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, Petitioner. Case No. 6-RC- 1320. November 3, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph C. Thackery, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. During the course of the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the Petitioner was not a labor organization and/or was not in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. This motion was referred to the Board by the hearing officer and is granted for reasons stated hereinafter in paragraph 2. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The organization involved: The petition was filed by Elmer A. Cole as "chairman" for the "A. F. of L. Joint Organizing Committee (see Attachment 'A')." Attachment "A" states that the Committee is "composed of the following unions," naming seven local AFL affiliates. At the hearing, the attorney for the unions contended that the Petitioner was a labor organization. In support of this con- tention, he adduced only evidence that the Petitioner is an informal organization, without constitution or bylaws or "offi- cers," formed, as Elmer A. Cole testified, solely "for the purpose of organizing the nonunion employees of Sears, Roebuck and Company." In its brief, however, the Petitioner asserts that the Committee is not a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h), being "but an administrative arm of the seven local unions as a convenient means of carrying on the internal affairs and purposes of the seven unions in- volved," and again alleges that the sole purpose of the Commit- tee was to organize the unorganized employees of the Employer. There is no evidence in the record, or even statement in the Petitioner's brief, which indicates the role of the Committee to the seven local unions in relation to representation of em- ployees; however, the petition itself alleges thatthe Committee, rather than the seven local unions, "desires to be certified as representative of the employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. ..." There is supplementary evidence in the news- paper of one of the unions that the Committee was formed as "the official agency to be placed on the NLRB ballot" and that "with the election won, the members will be assigned to the five unions represented." However, the Committee obtained from among the employees it seeks to represent designation cards for the purposes of making the requisite administrative showing of interest. 106 NLRB No 230. 322615 0 - 54 - 89 1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In view of the above, it would appear that the Committee is either a labor organization which has failed to comply with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act, or that it is a con- venient means for designating the seven local unions as joint petitioners. With respect to the latter alternative, the record negates any good-faith intention on the part of the seven local unions to bargain on a joint basis for the overall unit, the only unit appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition regardless of how the functioning of the Committee may be viewed. [The Board dismissed the petition.] WILFORD AUTO SALES, INC. and LOCAL 259, UNITED AUTO- MOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW- CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-5896. November 3, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur A. Greenstein, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings 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 meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner, as a result of a consent election,' was certified on October 17, 1951, as bargaining agent for a unit of production and maintenance employees.2 Thereafter, the parties entered into a collective-bargaining agreement exclud- ing from its coverage "parts employees, testers or service salesmen " and "maintenance men." The latest agreement, effective from December 12, 1952, to December 1, 1953, with a yearly automatic renewal clause, contains the same exclu- sions as the initial contract. 1Case No. 2-RC-4023. 2 This unit was described as "all shop employees of the Company, including service salesmen and/or testers, service clerks, mechanics, mechanics helpers, lubricators, new car service mechanics and helpers, used car utility men, parts men or countermen, and maintenance men, but excluding office help, watchmen, the parts manager, the service manager, new and used car salesmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act." 106 NLRB No. 237.