Cannell & Chaffin, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 887 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of CANNELL & CHAFFIN, INC., EMPLOYER AND PETITIONER
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD Or TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL 196, UNION
Case No. 21-RM-105.-Decided Augn t 26,1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Ben Grodsky,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation 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:
The Employer requests a unit of all its employees, excluding man-
agerial employees and supervisors, or, in the alternative, all employees
in its main store on Wilshire Boulevard. International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 196,
herein called the Teamsters, seeks to represent a unit of drivers,
drivers' helpers, furniture finishers, furniture handlers, and shipping
and receiving clerks at the retail store. There is no history of collec-
tive bargaining for any of the Employer's employees.
The Employer is engaged in the retail sale and manufacture of
furniture and furnishings, and the interior decoration of homes, offi-
ces and clubs. In connection with its business, it operates a retail
store, a workshop for the manufacture of custom made furniture and
furnishings, and a storage warehouse. There are 42 persons employed
85 N. L. R. B., No. 150.
887
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the store, and 21 at the workshop. There are no employees at the
warehouse.
The Employer's entire operations are conducted under a unified
management. All company policies, privileges, and benefits are de-
termined at the store, and affect all employees alike regardless of
location. All employees have uniform working conditions.
At the workshop, which is about 11/2 miles from the retail store, up-
holstered furniture, draperies, hangings, bedspreads, and similar arti-
cles are manufactured and fabricated. The work done at the workshop
originates with and is followed through to its completion by store
personnel.
There are two drivers, one drivers' helper, two furniture finishers,
three furniture handlers, and four shipping and receiving clerks em-
ployed at the store, and one shipping and receiving clerk employed at
the workshop. Of this group the Teamsters would exclude two furni-
ture handlers who work in the Employer's display department at the
store, the shipping and receiving clerk at the workshop, and three
shipping and receiving clerks at the store.' Those employees whom
the Teamsters would exclude from the unit work under the same super-
vision and do the same work as those in the same classifications whom
it would include. They have the same working conditions, and share
in all benefits available to all store and workshop employees.
The unit sought by the Teamsters is a heterogeneous grouping of
certain store employees some of whose interests and working condi-
tions are similar to those of other store and workshop employees whom
it would arbitrarily exclude. The Teamsters contends that the store
and workshop employees whom it wishes to exclude from the unit are
within the jurisdiction of other labor organizations. The Board, how-
ever, has held that the jurisdictional inability of a union to represent
certain employees is no ground for excluding them if their inclusion
in the unit would otherwise be appropriate.2
The employees sought by the Teamsters do not constitute a tradi-
tional bargaining group. Moreover, the proposed unit does not in-
clude all employees doing the same work and having similar interests.
We therefore find that the unit sought by the Teamsters is in-
appropriate.5
I The Teamsters would also exclude from its proposed unit the upholsterers, seamstresses,
and installers at the workshop , and the sales clerks, estimator , designer, sales contact men,
and clerical employees at the store.
2 Matter of The Robinson-Schwenn Store, 83 N . L. R. B. 35; Matter of Muskogee Dairy
Products Co., 85 N. L. R. B. 520; Matter of Beatrice Foods Company , 84 N. L. R. B. 512 ;
Matter of Bloomingdale Brothers, Inc., 81 N . L. R. B. 1252.
6 Matter of George Jensen, Inc., 77 N. L. R. B. 760; Matter of Louis Pizitz Dry Goods
Company, 80 N. L. R. B . 1442; Matter of Indianapolis Times Publishing Company, 82
N. L. R. B . 1385; Matter of Charles Smith Nash Company , 83 N. L. R. B. 511.
CANNELL & CHAFFIN, INC. 889
As the Teamsters' request for recognition was for a unit which we
have found to be inappropriate, we find that no question of repre-
sentation exists.4 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
-ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in the instant matter by
Cannell & Chaffin, Inc., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
4 Matter of Standard-Cooaa•Thatcher Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 50.