Amarillo Hardware Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 48 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
ager, ranging in number from one employee, shared by two store
managers, to five employees. We find that these store managers ex-
ercise supervisory authority over employees under them and hence
shall exclude them from the unit.'
Accordingly, we find that the following unit is appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act :
All regular full-time and all regular part-time employees of Mary
Carter Paint Co., Victor Paint Co. Division, employed at the Detroit,
Pontiac, and Flint, Michigan, stores, including the warehouse man-
ager, store managers in stores having no employees working under the
direction of a manager, and sales employees, but excluding the wall-
paper sales manager, the divisional sales manager, the area sales
managers, the store managers of multiemployee stores, the secretary,
confidential employees, guards, and professional employees, as de-
fined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' In Eastern Camera Photo Corp., supra, cited by the Amalgamated , the employees were
temporary ; here they are permanent.
Amarillo Hardware Company, Inc., and Building and Mechani-
cal Supply Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Amarillo Hardware Company, Inc.' and Lodge 1255, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 16-RC-3493. July 28, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Leon E. Kahn. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Mem-
bers Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in-commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
1 The parties agree that the two companies constitute a single employer , and together
they will be referred to herein as the Employer.
148 NLRB No. 9.
AMARILLO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC., ETC. 49
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 production, maintenance, and
warehouse employees at the Employer's Amarillo, Texas, warehouses,
including shipping and receiving employees and truckdrivers, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, salesmen, buyers, professional and
technical employees, managerial employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the
only appropriate unit is an overall unit of all its employees including
the employees of,its wholly owned subsidiary Mercantile Acceptance
Company, Inc., herein called Mercantile Acceptance. There is no his-
tory of collective bargaining in the operations herein involved.
The Employer is engaged in the wholesale distribution and sales
of appliances and hardware products with principal places of busi-
ness at 600 Grant and 701 Johnson Streets, Amarillo, and in Lubbock,
Texas. At these locations display areas, offices, and warehouses are
maintained. In addition, the Employer maintains four other ware-
houses in various locations in Amarillo. Mercantile Acceptance
handles the financing and credit arrangements for the Employer
from its offices also located at 600 Grant Street.
The majority of the Employer's employees work at the 600 Grant
Street facility. At this location a display of appliances, hardware,
and other items sold by the Employer are maintained, and whole-
sale sales are made directly by the floor salesmen, through telephone
orders, or through orders brought in by its outside salesmen. In addi-
tion, the purchasing, payroll, printing, financing departments, and
the IBM section, which handles order writing, invoicing, bookkeep-
ing, and invoice control, are located in office areas adjacent to the dis-
play area. Mercantile Acceptance employees are also located in the
office area at 600 Grant Street. Also, at this location, and adjacent
to the display area, the Employer has a service and appliance depart-
ment which repairs and services appliances and supplies orders for
various requested parts. Each of the above departments, as well as
the Employer's executive offices , which are also located in the office
area , have supporting staffs of receptionists, clerks, typists, and
stenographers who perform usual office clerical drities. Certain other
salesmen and employees performing office clerical duties are also em-
ployed at both the Employer's 701 Johnson Street location, and in
Lubbock, Texas. All of the employees working in the above-described
departments and areas are separately supervised, and have only mini-
7 60-577-65--v of 148-5
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mal contact with those employees herein sought to be represented by
the Petitioner, namely, those employees working principally in the
Employer's warehousing and delivery operations.
The employees in the Employer's various warehouses are engaged
in the ordinary duties of warehouse and delivery employees. The
merchandise handled by the Employer is picked up from suppliers by
trucks and brought back to the warehouses to be stored. Deliveries
to the customers are made from the warehouses. The usual type of
job classifications are employed at the warehouses, such as truck dis-
patchers, truck loaders, packers, mechanics, truckdrivers, and plant
clericals. The warehouse employees are separately supervised and
have only incidental exchange of duties with employees in the above
display or office areas, such as the moving of appliances and hardware
to the display areas, or checking with the IBM section or purchasing or
sales departments as to the availability of merchandise or inventory.
In these circumstances, and as the record shows that the work inter-
ests and supervision of the employees herein sought to be represented
by the Petitioner are different from those employees whom the Em-
ployer would also include in the unit, we find that the warehouse unit
sought by the Petitioner constitutes an appropriate unit for collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.'
With respect to the warehouse employees in the Lubbock warehouse,
the record indicates they perform virtually the same warehouse work
as that performed by the warehouse employees in Amarillo. How-
ever the Lubbock warehouse is separated from those in Amarillo by
approximately 120 miles. In addition, the Lubbock warehouse em-
ployees are separately supervised, have a minimal contact with
employees from the Amarillo area, and do not transfer to or inter-
change with the Amarillo operation. Accordingly, we shall not in-
clude the warehouse employees at Lubbock in the unit.
In view of the foregoing, and on the basis of the entire record, we
find that all production, maintenance, and warehouse -employees at
the Employer's Amarillo, Texas, warehouses, including shipping and
receiving employees and truckdrivers, but excluding office clerical
employees, salesmen, buyers, professional and technical employees,
2 See Interstate Supply Company, 117 NLRB 1062, 1065, and cases cited therein.
The record shows that two janitors are employed at the Grant Street location. The
janitors work under the supervision of the office manager and their work is confined almost
exclusively to the display and office areas. Their only contact with the warehouse em-
ployees is to empty wastebaskets in the warehouse. The Employer contracts the cleaning
work in the warehouses to an outside firm. Accordingly, we shall exclude the janitors from
the unit. See Morris Ksrschman & Co., Inc, et al., 111 NLRB 776, 779.
We shall also exclude the two snackbar employees working in the snackbar at the Grant
Street location These employees perform no warehouse work, do not interchange with
warehouse employees, and work under separate supervision of the office manager. Cf.
Allied Stores of Ohio, d/b/a A. Polsky Company, 90 NLRB 1868, 1869.
EMERY INDUSTRIES , INC. (DICE ROAD) 51
managerial employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined
in the Act 3 constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 The warehousing operations are under the direct supervision of Marvin Jones, ware-
house superintendent . The record shows that when Jones is absent , or not available, he
leaves specific instructions as to work assignments which are carried out by Truck Fore-
man Anderson and Assistant Warehouse Supervisor Dale. It appears that neither Dale
nor Anderson has the authority to transfer , discipline, or discharge employees, and in
carrying out their duties, follow instructions set down by Jones. The record further
shows that when Jones is absent one of the Employer ' s officers takes charge and Dale and
Anderson are expected to discuss any problems which arise with the officials in question.
The Employer contends that Dale and Anderson are in effect leadmen who merely follow
routine directions in carrying out orders and should be included in the unit. As the record
does not show that either Anderson or Dale hire, discharge, responsibly direct employees,
or have any of the other attributes of supervisory authority, we shall include them in
the unit.
Emery Industries , Inc. (Dice Road ) and United Emery Indus-
tries Employees Committee (Dice Road ), Petitioner. Case No.
21-RC-8373. July 28, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER AMENDING CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVE
On June 25, 1963, pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election, a representation election was held among the Em-
ployer's production and maintenance employees at its Santa Fe
Springs, California, plant. As a result of this election, the Regional
Director, on July 3, 1963, certified United Emery Industries Em-
ployees Committee (Dice Road), the Petitioner herein,' as exclusive
bargaining representative of the aforementioned employees. On
May 13, 1964, the Petitioner filed the instant motion to amend the
certification to designate "Emery Unit of Local 509, UAW," as certi-
fied representative of the Employer's employees. On June 1, 1964,
the Employer filed a memorandum in opposition.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
In its motion, the Petitioner alleged that on or about April 8, it
mailed a notice to all of its members stating that : a special member-
ship meeting would be held to decide whether the Petitioner should
affiliate with Local 509, UAW ; pursuant to said notice, a special meet-
ing of its members was held on April 18, 1964, attended by 19 of the
' No other labor organization appeared on the ballot.
148 NLRB No. 8.