Sears, Roebuck & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 777 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

SEARS , ROEBUCK & CO. 777
Sears, Roebuck & Co. and Retail , Wholesale & Depart-
ment Store Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
15-RC-4120
May 26, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer H. Sloan McCloskey,
of the National Labor Relations Board. 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. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief,
which has been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing and finds that they are free from
prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
ineanil}g of the Act, anct it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming tp
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerpirig
the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
By its petition, as amended at the hearing, the Petition-
er seeks to represent a unit consisting of service person-
nel, truckdrivers, warehouse workers, and parts depart-
ment employees at the Employer's Natchez, Mississippi,
retail store. The Employer asserts that the unit sought
is inappropriate because it comprises an arbitrary group-
ing of employees, and the Employer further contends
that under the circumstances present in this case, only
a storewide unit of employees is appropriate. There
is no history of collective bargaining for any of the
employees at the Employer's Natchez store.
The Natchez store has a complement of about 105
employees, almost equally divided between selling and
nonselling classifications. The entire operation is housed
under one roof, and, according to evidence introduced
by the Employer, the Natchez store is a prototype
model for future stores in nonurban areas, so that there
is a necessity for interchange in functions performed
by the employees without regard to their regularly
assigned classifications. However, the Employer's sales
force is grouped under four classifications, namely, the
Hard-Lines Division, the Soft-Lines Division, Catalog
Order, and the Coffee Shop. The nonselling classifica-
tions consist, essentially, of warehouse, receiving, serv-
ice, display, and maintenance.
The warehouse section, which the Petitioner seeks,
is comprised of one warehouseman, one shipper, two
merchandise assemblers, two truckdrivers, and one
truckdriver's helper. The receiving section, no part of
which is sought by the Petitioner, is composed of one
checker, one clerical, and three markers. The employees
assigned to the receiving section, which is physically
located in an area immediately adjacent to the ware-
house, consistently work throughout the warehouse area,
where they receive, check, and mark merchandise as
it arrives at the dock in the warehouse area.
The service section, which the Petitioner seeks, is
composed of about 28,employees, including electronic
and mechanical technicians, parts department employ-
ees, service clericals, and one telephone sales solicitor.
These employees are engaged in the service and repair
of various types of merchandise, and in performing
their functions the service section employees frequently
work in the sales area.'
The nonselling portions of the Employer's Natchez
operations also encompass a display department, staffed
by three employees who are responsible for the erection
of displays throughout the store, and a maintenance
department staffed by six porters who perform janitorial
duties, in all selling and nonselling areas.
All employees enjoy the same fringe benefits, such
as holiday pay, vacations, and pension and insurance
benefits. Because of the comparative smallness of the
Natchez store, there is contact between the employees
,ls, and the employees are trained0t al] operational leyp
and encouraged to perform a variety of both selling
and nonselling functions. As a consequence, interchanges
from and to the several sections are common.
The Board has found appropriate a unit of warehouse
employees in the retail industry where the warehouse
operation is geographically separated from the retail
store operations, where the warehouse employees are
under separate supervision, and where, additionally, the
warehousing functions are not substantially integrated
with other store funtions.2 In the instant case, however,
the Employer's entire operation is housed in a single
building, and integration of warehousing with other func-
tions of the store necessarily occurs. Furthermore, the
Petitioner seeks to exclude five employees in the receiv-
ing section who would be an integral part of a warehouse
operation, as well as the maintenance porters and the
display department employees. In these circumstances,
and in view of the lack of any affirmative indication
' Although they are not technically a part of the service section,
the Employer also employs a watch repairman and a seamstress, but
the record is not sufficiently clear to determine whether these employees
are sought by the Petitioner as a part of its requested unit
P A Hams & Co , 116 NLRB 1628
182 NLRB No. 121
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the Petitioner of its willingness to represent a ORDER
more comprehensive unit, we shall dismiss the petition '
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
Sears Roebuck & Co 180 NLRB No 132 it hereby is, dismissed