Bonwit Teller, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 759 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

BONWIT TELLER, INC. 759
posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 9, shall, after being signed by
the Respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any material.
(b) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt
of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herew,th.21
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it
alleges that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices other than those found
herein.
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board ' s Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words, "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
n In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , In writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate or threaten you concerning your union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you concerning your cooperation with an agent or
agents of the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT request you to aid us in influencing employees to cease union
activities.
WE WILL NOT engage in or attempt to engage in surveillance of union
activities.
WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights which you have under the National
Labor Relations Act to join a union of your own choice and to engage in
union activities, or not to join a union and not to engage in such activities.
BALDWIN SUPPLY COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room
2023, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone
684-3627.
Bonwit Teller , Inc. and Local 291, Retail , Wholesale and Depart-
ment Store Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Bonwit Teller, Inc., Employer-Petitioner, and Local 300, Retail
Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO. Cases 13-RC-
10737 and 13-RM-816. June 00, 1966
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
On October 20, 1965, Local 291, Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, AFL-CIO (Local 291), filed its petition for an election
159 NLRB No. 62.
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pursuant to Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, among the Employer's nonselling employees. On Novem-
ber 17, 1965, a hearing began before Hearing Officer Hyman Bear,
and Local 300, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO
(Local 300), and Local 208, International Ladies Garment Workers
Union, AFL-CIO (Local 208), each intervened in the proceeding on
the basis of a one-card showing of interest., On November 22, Local
300 wrote a letter to the Employer claiming to represent a majority
of both its selling and nonselling employees and demanding recog-
nition in an overall unit. On November 24, 1965, the Employer filed
its petition for an election in the overall unit. Thereafter, the pro-
ceedings were consolidated and further hearings were held on Novem-
ber 29 and 30, 1965. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs
were filed by the Employer, Local 291, and Local 300.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the briefs of the
parties, the National Labor Relations Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. Local 291, Local 300, and Local 208 are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act, claiming to represent certain employ-
ees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9 (c) (1)
and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. This proceeding concerns employees at the Employer's women's
specialty store in Chicago, Illinois. This store regularly employs
approximately 193 full-time employees, of whom 115 are selling
employees, and 78, including 23 alteration and 6 office employees, are
nonselling employees.
Local 291 seeks to represent all nonselling employees excluding
office and alteration employees.2 The Employer and Local 300 con-
tend that the only appropriate unit at the store is an overall unit
including all nonselling and selling employees. The Employer also
contends that if a unit of nonselling employees is found appropriate,
the alteration employees should be included in it. Local 208 contends
the alteration employees should be excluded from a_nonselling unit.3
Although department stores differ in material respects, our experi-
ence with the characteristics of department store personnel and their
i The Hearing Officer ruled that while Local 300 could intervene , its showing of interest
was insufficient to permit it to seek a larger unit than that sought by Local 291 in its
petition.
2 Local 291 also contends that the Employer 's petition should be dismissed unless Local
300 comes forward with a 30-percent showing of interest . We reject this contention.
P. R. Mallory & Co., Inc., 89 NLRB 962, 963 , footnote 3, and cases cited therein.
3 Local 208 does not want a place on the ballot either in an election in an overall unit
or in a unit limited to nonselling employees
BONWIT TELLER, INC. 761
work recently led us, in our Stern's, Paramus 4 and Lord Taylor s
decisions, to find that generally there are such marked differences
between selling and nonselling employees in such stores as to support
the appropriateness of either a separate nonselling or a separate sell-
ing unit. Disposition of the request for a nonselling unit in this case
is complicated by the consolidated petition requesting the overall
(selling and nonselling) unit, which is, of course, an appropriate unit
on its face. We shall consider first the question of whether the
requested nonselling unit is an appropriate one.
The store involved here has four full floors, a basement, and a mez-
zanine. In the basement is the receiving and shipping department
and the cosmetics storeroom. On each of the full floors merchandise
is stored and sold. The business office and the alteration department
are located on the mezzanine. The record shows that customers at the
store receive the individualized attention from selling personnel com-
mon to such specialty stores, requiring the sales personnel to employ
the full range of skills characteristic of this work.6 It is also clear
that for the most part the nonselling personnel work in areas sepa-
rate and apart from the selling personnel. This, the shipping and
receiving personnel and the cosmetic clerk work in the basement
where no selling is done. Stockclerks spend a major portion of their
time in stockrooms, which are to the side of the selling areas. Cashier-
wrappers work in contact with selling personnel, but their work does
not generally take them into selling areas of the store. The remain-
ing nonselling employees, consisting of the porters, a maid, the eleva-
tor operators, the display employees, and the parking lot attendant,
either do not regularly work in the selling areas of the store or per-
form work there of a kind which involves minimal customer contact.
In sum then, the record indicates sufficient differences between the
selling and nonselling employees to warrant our finding that the non-
selling unit requested may be a separate appropriate unit for
collective-bargaining purposes. In light of the petition for the over-
all unit, however, the appropriateness of the nonselling unit will
depend finally upon the desires of the nonselling employees in the
elections that we shall direct.
We turn now to consider whether the office employees and employ-
ees in the alteration department should be included in the nonselling
unit. The six office employees work in a business office located on the
mezzanine between the second and third floors of the store. They meet
customers, accept customer payments on their charge accounts, deal
4 Allied Stores of New York, Inc. d/b/a Stern's, Paramus, 150 NLRB 799
5 Lord & Taylor, a Division of Associated Dry Goods Corporation, 150 NLRB 812.
9 Cf. J. W. Mays, Inc., 147 NLRB 968. We do not overlook the fact that the Employer,
at about the same time Local 291 began to organize store employees, issued sales books to
some of the nonselling employees. But we do not regard that fact as significant because
any selling performed by such employees may fairly be characterized as negligible.
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with customer complaints on bills or on delivery of goods, and do
miscellaneous clerical work. It is true here, as it was in Stern's,
Paramus, supra, that such office employees are to be excluded from
a unit of nonselling employees because of their different interests and
because of their geographical separation from other nonselling
employees.
The alteration department employees also work in a separate.
enclosed area on the mezzanine away from other employees. Altera-
tion employees have quite distinct interests from other employees in
a store of this type. Their skills and work content are quite differ-
ent. The fact that they are characteristically organized on a separate
basis from other department or clothing store personnel is an indica-
tion of their identifiably distinct community of interest. We shall
therefore exclude them from the nonselling unit.
In light of all the above circumstances, we conclude that a non-
selling unit excluding employees in the business office and the altera-
tion department would be an appropriate unit for collective-
bargaining purposes. Since, however, the larger overall unit sought
by the Employer and Local 300 would also be an appropriate unit,
and as in these circumstances we consider the desires of the employees
a factor relevant to our determination, we shall not make a final unit
determination at this time. Rather, we shall conduct an election
among the employees in the nonselling unit to ascertain whether they
desire representation separate from that of the overall unit.
We shall therefore direct separate elections in the two voting
groups of employees at the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, store, as
described below, excluding from each group guards and supervisors
as described in the Act.
Group 1. All full-time and regular part-time nonselling employ-
ees, excluding employees in the business office and in the alteration
department.
Group 2. All full-time and regular part-time employees, including
employees in the business office and the alteration department, but
excluding nonselling employees.
In the event that a majority of the employees in voting group 1
selects Local 291, that group will be deemed to have indicated its
desire for representation in a separate unit, which we then find to be
appropriate. In these circumstances, if a majority of voting group 2
selects Local 300, find that group is also a separate appropriate unit.
In the event the employees in voting group 1 do not vote for separate
representation, their votes are to be pooled 7 with those in voting
If the votes are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner: The votes for
Local 291 shall be counted as valid votes , but neither for nor against Local 300 which is
seeking the more comprehensive unit. All other votes are to be accorded their face value,
whether for representation by Local 300 or for no union.
INT'L UNION OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 347 763
group 2 in a single overall unit, which, in the circumstances, we find
to be appropriate. The Regional Director is instructed to issue a cer-
tification or certifications as decided by the results of the elections.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8
MEMBER JE NKINS took no part in the above Decision and Direction
of Election.
8 Election eligibility lists, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters,
must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 13, within 7 days
after the date of this Decision and Direction of Elections . The Regional Director shall
make the lists available to all parties to the elections . No extension of time to file these
lists shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances.
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the elections
whenever proper objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236.
International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, Local
Union No. 347 and Falstaff Brewing Corporation and Interna-
tional Union of United Brewery , Flour, Cereal , Soft Drink and
Distillery Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 130.
Case 23-CD-101. June 21,1966
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, following a charge filed by Falstaff Brew-
ing Corporation, hereinafter called the Employer or Falstaff, under
Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (D) of the Act. The charge alleges that
on or about December 30, 1965, International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 347, hereinafter called the
Respondent or Engineers, induced and encouraged employees of the
Employer and also threatened, coerced, and restrained the Employer
by threatening to engage in a work stoppage on and after Janu-
ary 5, 1966, in order to force or require the Employer to assign par-
ticular work to members of the Respondent, rather than to members
of International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink
and Distillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 130,
hereinafter called the Brewers. A hearing was held on February 16
and 17, 1966, at Galveston, Texas, before Hearing Officer Paul L.
Harper. All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. The rulings of the
Hearing Officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. All parties have filed briefs in support of
159 NLRB No. 51.