Sears, Roebuck & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 21, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 242 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY and GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL NO. 980, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , AFL, Petitioner SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY and RETAIL CLERKS IN- TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION , LOCAL 1532, AFL, Peti- tioner . Cases Nos . 20-RC-2234 and 20-RC-2259 . July 21, 1953 DECISION , DIRECTION OF ELECTION , AND ORDER Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Karin Nelson , hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. i Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston , Styles, and Peterson]. 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 employees of the Employer. 2 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. 4. The instant petitions involve the Employer's Santa Rosa, California, operation , which consists of a retail store, an adjacent automobile service station , and a warehouse approxi- mately 1 mile away. In its petition , the Teamsters requested substantially an overall unit of employees of the Employer , while the Retail Clerks, in its petition, sought a unit of store employees only, with certain exclusions . At the hearing , however, the Teamsters limited its request to a unit of all employees at the ware- house, a shipping helper, receiving helper, and the main- tenance engineer at the store , and three installers at the service station . The Retail Clerks proposed unit consists of all other employees at the store , excluding those sought by the Teamsters and the venetian blind installer , who is not sought by either union. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one including all employees of the store, the service station, and the warehouse, and both unions would accept such an overall unit as an alternative. Most of the employees sought by the Teamsters are located at the warehouse , and are engaged in receiving, shipping, 1 The Employer moved to dismiss the petition in Case No 20-RC-2259 on the ground, among others, that the unit sought therein is inappropriate. For the reasons stated herein- after , the motion is granted. 2Retail Clerks International Association , Local 1532, AFL, the petitioner in case No 20-RC-2259, appears as intervenor in Case No . 20-RC-2234. 106 NLRB No. 54. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY 243 warehousing, and service activities. In addition to the ware- house, however, the Employer maintains storage space at the store building , and about half the goods received for resale arrive at the store. A shuttle bus moves merchandise between the two points. Some of the employees at the store have the same classifications as employees at the warehouse and perform similar functions. The Teamsters includes in its proposed unit some of these employees , such as the receiving and shipping helpers, but excludes others, such as the stock- men. There are also some servicemen at the store . More than half of all requests for service are received at the store, and all clerical work in connection with service and the scheduling of service visits are handled at the store. There have been permanent transfers of employees among the three locations , and there are periods , such as warehouse sales, when employees from the store work at the warehouse, and at certain times warehousemen work in the store. The Employer's operations are all unified under the store manager. Under him is an assistant manager in charge of all operations, and a merchandising manager. Under these two individuals are the managers of the various retail sales divisions$ and the nonselling divisions . Personnel matters are handled for all employees by one office in the store building. The same vacation and holiday policy, profit-sharing plan, and discount privileges apply to all employees. New employees are all hired under the same procedure and undergo the same training program. In view of the integration between the warehouse and the store, the similarity of functions at both locations, and the unified management of store and warehouse , we find, in accordance with the contention of the Employer and the alter- native requests of both unions, that only the overall unit is appropriate.4 As this is the unit originally sought by the Teamsters in Case No. 20-RC-2234, in which case the Retail Clerks is an intervenor, we shall direct an election in such a unit in that case, and dismiss the petition in Case No. 20-RC-2259. Accordingly, we find that the following unit of employees of the Employer at its Santa Rosa, California, operation is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees, including sales employees, office employees, truckdrivers, warehousemen, and the venetian blind installer, 5 but excluding professional employees, guards, the secretary to the store manager ,' and supervisors as defined in the Act. 3 The three installers in the service station, sought by the Teamsters , are under the immediate supervision of the manager of the auto accessories and tire sales division, which is located in the store 4Sears, Roebuck & Co., 101 NLRB 665; see also Marshall Field & Company , 90 NLRB 1, in which the Board , under similar circumstances , stated that it would not grant a separate warehouse unit when any party claimed such unit to be inappropriate. 5 No reason appears for excluding this employee , whom both unions first sought to include and then to exclude. 6 It was stipulated that this individual is a confidential employee. 322615 0 - 54 - 17 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The Employer seeks to include the part-time extra employees whom the Teamsters and the Retail Clerks would exclude. These employees work regularly, but for limited hours, generally averaging a minimum of 9 hours a week. They do the same work as regular employees, are carried on the same payroll, and receive the same rate of pay, but are not eligible for certain other benefits until they have worked a specified minimum number of hours in a year. In accordance with our customary practice, we shall permit these regular part-time employees to vote.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] [The Board dismissed the petition.] 7Sears, Roebuck & Co., 91 NLRB 1411. AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY, EL PASO SMELTING WORKS' and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 583, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 33-RC-447. July 21, 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 Byron E. Guse, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board had delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act, 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. A 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing unit of production and maintenance employees, a unit of electricians and their helpers in the electrical department at the Employer's El Paso Smelting Works. The Intervenor contends that this unit is inappropriate because of a 10-year history of collective bar- gaining on a plantwide basis in which the employees sought herein have been included. The Employer takes no position. 1 The name appears as corrected at the hearing. 2 International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 509, was permitted to intervene. 106 NLRB No. 43.