Sears, Roebuck and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 45 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. 45
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Chauffeurs , Teamsters and Helpers
Local Union 215, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner.
,Case No. 25-RC-2664. April 21,1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, hearings were held before Hearing Officers John Hines
and Albert Fisher. The Hearing Officers' rulings made at the hearings
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees at the Employer's
Evansville, Indiana, warehouse, excluding guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.3 The Employer contends
that the proposed unit is inappropriate on the ground that the work
of the employees sought is closely integrated with that of the other
employees in its Evansville operations. There is no bargaining history
for these employees.
Sears, Roebuck and Co. operates the following in the Evansville
area: (1) a main downtown store; (2) a service station-1 block away;
(3) a home modernization center-1 block away; (4) a warehouse or
service center-6 blocks away ; (5) two suburban stores, Washington
Square and North Parker; and (6) a small store in Henderson,
The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the
record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
2 The Employer moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner did
not have a current showing of interest. The motion is denied. It is settled that a
Petitioner's showing of interest is an administrative matter for the Board's determina-
tion not litigable in a representation proceeding. 0. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB
516, 518 Moreover, we are satisfied that the Petitioner's showing of interest is sufficient.
8 The Petitioner had alternatively requested various segments of the warehouse opera-
tion. However, since the work of those sought was substantially integrated with the work
of others at the warehouse, we find such fragmented units inappropriate. See Sears,
Roebuck & Co., 149 NLRB 1525 At the hearing, the Petitioner indicated that it was
willing to represent both sales and clerical employees in the warehouse unit if the Board
included them.
152 NLRB No. 4.
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kentucky-14 miles away. The warehouse or service center performs
diverse functions. In addition to the shipping and receiving depart-
ments, the warehouse contains an upholstery and drapery fabrication
department, an installation department, a parts department, a mer-
chandise service department, and the commercial tire sales and service
departments. The warehouse manager, Mr. Neuffer, is responsible for
the cleanliness and heating of the building and is overall supervisor
for the shipping and receiving departments.
The warehousing activities, under Neuffer, are divided into two
functions : receiving, under Fred Milke's supervision, includes em-
ployees who unload trucks, elevator operators, markers, checkers, stock-
men, and receiving helpers; and shipping, under Noble Cutridge's
supervision, includes shipping clerks and part-time employees when
needed. Unlike employees at other parts of the Employer's operation,
the warehouse building employees handle primarily bulk items. The
warehouse personnel work closely with warehouse clericals, whom the
Petitioner would include, in performing the initial work connected
with the movement of merchandise.
The upholstery and drapery fabrication department performs up-
holstering work and fabricates draperies for the store's own use, as
well as customer service-both at the shop in the warehouse and at the
customer's location. Herbert Evans is the manager of the department.
The installation department under Manager James Fisher schedules
the installation of equipment for customers on small jobs and arranges
for use of independent contractors on large jobs. There are three
clericals who do the scheduling.
The parts and mechanical service departments are under the direct
supervision of Manager William Cline. Under him there are separate
supervisors for each of these functions : Mr. Hilgediech, the parts
manager; Mr. Deneen, the mechanical service manager; and Mr. Casey,
the mechanical service shop supervisor. The parts department fur-
nishes parts for the use of the Employer's other departments and sells
parts directly to customers. The mechanical service department
handles the deluging of both mechanical equipment and furniture
prior to sale and delivery. The mechanical service shop handles the
repairs of lawn mowers, washing machines, and refrigerators. The
service and parts departments work together frequently. In the me-
chanical service department there are service clericals who take the
customers' telephone calls and route the servicemen.
The last department in the warehouse building is the commercial
tire sales and service department under Manager Thomas Romaine.
The department orders, receives, sells, delivers, and installs truck
tires.'
* In addition to the above , there are maintenance employees in the warehouse building
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. 47
Each of the departments in the warehouse is under its department
manager. These department managers all report to the operating man-
ager, who in turn reports to the general manager in charge of all Seam
operations in the Evansville area.
The record does not reveal such a degree of integration between
the Employer's other operations and the warehouse building as to
preclude a unit limited to the warehouse building. Although there
have been occasional permanent transfers between the various operat-
ing units of the Employer, there has been an average of only 5 trans-
fers a year for the last 7 years, counting all types of transfers, and a
maximum of 8 between the warehouse and the other operative units in
a given year despite the fact that the entire operation in Evansville
employs approximately 500 persons. Temporary transfers have gen-
erally occurred only in cases of emergency or when a special skill is
required, and appear to be minimal.' The Employer argues that
there is integration between the different locations because employees
in the various operations are in constant contact with one another.
The evidence introduced tends to show, at most, only the normal con-
tact between office clericals at the main store and warehouse building
personnel. Employees on occasion go to the main store as part of
their normal job tasks. The amount of time the employees spend in
this activity is minimal and does not establish a community of interest
between these groups of employees. We are not unmindful of the
fact that there is some overlapping of work skills among the employees
in the main store and the warehouse building, but we do not believe
that in the circumstances of this case this factor is sufficient to destroy
the homogeneity and mutuality of interest of the employees in the
warehouse building.
Thus, although the overall unit alleged to be appropriate by the
employer might be appropriate, it is not the only appropriate unit
and therefore does not preclude a finding that the unit here requested
is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. Section 9(b) of
the Act not only empowers the Board to decide in each case "the unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining", but also directs
it to make appropriate unit determinations which will "assure to
employees the fullest freedom in exercising rights guaranteed by this
Act", i.e., the rights of self-organization and collective bargaining.
In effectuating this mandate, the Board has emphasized that the Act
does not compel labor organizations to seek representation in the most
6 Most evidence on this point referred to such unusual occasions as the opening of a
new store in Washington Square and the expansion of a North Park store or to such
a seasonal occurrence as warehouse employees assisting in the deluxing process at the
main store during Christmas time Outside of these , the Employer can at best point
to only five specific cases of temporary transfers While an employee might go from the
warehouse building to the main store in the course of his work , this is not a transfer
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
comprehensive grouping of employees unless such grouping constitutes
the only appropriate unit.
The facts of this case do not reveal such a degree of integration or
merger of operations as would require our rejection of the Petitioner's
request for the single warehouse building unit. The warehouse build-
ing employees constitute a homogeneous, identifiable, and distinct
group having a close community of interest. In view of the separate
location of the warehouse building from the other operations of the
Employer, the autonomous day-to-day operations of the warehouse
building, the lack of integration of the warehouse building employees
with other operations of the Employer, the absence of a history of
collective bargaining, and the fact that no union requests a
broader unit, we find that a unit limited to warehouse employees is
appropriate s
There remains for consideration the unit placement of the following :
Supervisors: The parties are in disagreement over the placement of
Milke, Cutridge, Deneen, Hilgedrieck, and Casey. The Petitioner
would exclude them as supervisors, while the Employer would include
them. Milke is the receiving manager and Cutridge is the shipping
manager. Both are classified as managers and were referred to dur-
ing the hearing as being in charge of their respective departments,
and both assign and direct employees in their departments. Also, both
are looked upon by the rank and file employees as leaders. The same
is true of Hilgedrieck, the parts manager, and Deneen, the mechanical
service manager. Casey, the mechanical service shop supervisor, is
responsible for seeing to it that men in his section are working and
has the power to discipline employees. In view of the foregoing, we
find that Milke, Cutridge, Deneen, Hilgedrieck, and Casey are super- '
visors within the meaning of the Act, and we shall exclude them from
the unit.
Commercial tire salesmen. The Employer would include the tire
salesmen in the unit. The Petitioner would exclude them, but will
represent such employees in the event the Board should include them in
the unit. The tire salesmen and the tire changers work together loading
tires on the tire changer's truck. In case of emergency the tire sales-
man will load the tires in his car and make a delivery. When out on
the road the tire changers help sell tires to customers. The tire
changers and the tire salesmen meet monthly to discuss mutual prob-
lems. In addition, all the tire salesmen have had training as installers
and some in fact were installers before becoming salesmen. We ,find
that there is a sufficient community of interest between the tire sales-
men and other employees in the unit, particularly the tire changers, to
warrant their inclusion in the unit.
0 Sears, Roebuck and Co., 151 NLRB 1356.
HOISTING & PORTABLE ENGINEERS NO. 701 49
Clericals : The record reveals that the work of the clericals in the
service, installation, shipping, and receiving departments brings them
in frequent contact with the other employees of the warehouse build-
ing and that the duties are a part of the functional operation of the
warehouse. Under the circumstances, we believe that the clerical em-
ployees are plant clericals whose interests are closely related to those of
other warehouse building employees, and we include them in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All employees employed by the Employer at its warehouse service
center located at Second and Clark Avenue building in Evansville,
Indiana, including plant clericals and tire salesmen, but excluding
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Hoisting and Portable Engineers Local No. 701 , International
Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO and Darwin T. Chapek
and Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., Party to the Contract . Case No.
36-CB-326. April,02,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 12, 1964, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in his attached Decision. Thereafter
the Charging Party filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the De-
cision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and
hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications :
' As no exceptions were filed with respect to the Trial Examiner's findings that the
Respondent violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act, we adopt these findings pro
forma.
152 NLRB No. 6.
789-730-66-vol. 15 2- 5