City Stores Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1017 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

LIT BROTHERS DIVISION OF CITY STORES COMPANY 1017
of the employees . He had expressed no opinion on the merits or demerits
of unions , and attempted in no way to disparage or discourage such organi-
zation . There never was a bargaining agent that represented the majority of
respondent's employees . The board itself found that the respondent's ex-
planation to his employees of the purpose of the poll could not have been
reasonably construed as an implied threat of loss of their employment if
they did not abandon the union ; and it further found that there was no
threat of economic reprisal in respondent's statement that before actually
fixing and submitting bids for certain timber, he wanted to know whether
they wanted a union in the mill . In all of his conduct and relations with
the union representatives and his own employees , the respondent was found
by the Board to have acted in good faith. The Board's conclusion that re-
spondent was guilty of an unfair labor practice in his poll of employees is
without substantial support in the evidence
Upon the record as a whole , which clearly shows that Respondent did not
suggest that the elections be held, that it did not participate therein, or that the
elections were held so Respondent could ascertain the number and identity of
the persons supporting the Union , the undersigned finds that the allegations of
the complaint that Respondent conducted elections among its employees in vio-
lation of Section 8 (a) (1) is not sustained by the evidence. Accordingly, the
undersigned recommends that the 8 ( a) (1) allegations of the complaint be
dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case , the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLusIONS OF LAW
1. Industrial Stationery & Printing Company, Huntington Park, California, is,
and at all times material herein has been, engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Los Angeles Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 78, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint that Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and
(5) of the Act has not been sustained.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
9 See also, Tualatin Valley Cooperative, Incorporated, 72 NLRB 907.
Lrr BROTHERS DIVISION OF CITY STORES COMPANY 1 and WINDOW
TRIMMERS , DECORATORS AND DIsPI.AYMEN's UNION, LOCAL 621,
AFFILIATED WITH UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA , AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 4-RC-1867. March f6,
1968
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert B. Mintz,
3 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
103 NLRB No. 103.
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
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, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.3
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner requests that the Board find appropriate a unit
consisting of all decorators and assistant decorators in the display
department of the Employer's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, depart-
ment store. The Employer and the Intervenor oppose severance of
these employees from the established storewide bargaining unit.
The Employer's Philadelphia store is divided, for administrative
purposes, into four major sections consisting of, respectively, the
publicity department, the store manager's division, the controller's
division, and the merchandising division. The employees in the unit
requested by the Petitioner are all assigned to the display depart-
ment which, together with the advertising section and other groups,
is a part of the publicity department. Supervision of the display
department is provided by a director and two assistants. The di-
rector is responsible to the head of the publicity department and
works closely with other elements of that department and the other
store divisions in the planning and execution of display programs.
Approximately 3,000 to 3,500 employees work at the Philadelphia
store. The greatest number of these, including the decorators and
assistant decorators, have been represented for the past 12 years in
a broad storewide unit by the Intervenor. Other labor organiza-
tions currently represent other, smaller segments of the store work
force. There are 11 employees in the display department classified
as decorators and 8 who are classified as assistant decorators. The
display department also includes porters, carpenters, and painters 4
' At the hearing, the Employer and the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the
ground that it requested an inappropriate unit. The motion having been referred to the
Board for decision , it is hereby granted for reasons stated hereinafter under paragraph
numbered 3
s Local 1390, Retail Clerks International Association , AFL, herein termed the Inter-
venor, was granted intervention in this proceeding upon showing of a contractual interest.
'One employee , classified as an artist , is also in the department and is represented in
the same unit as the painters.
LIT BROTHERS DIVISION OF CITY STORES COMPANY 1019
The latter two groups are represented separately in storewide craft
units.
The duties of the Employer's decorators consist, generally, in the
decoration of windows and interior areas of the store for the purpose
of advertising and promoting the sale of merchandise. They install
and arrange merchandise, some of which they procure themselves from
the sales departments, and the props and decorative material used in
dressing the display area. The assistant decorators bring merchan-
dise and necessary equipment to the decorators, run errands, and
generally help the decorators. While there is some conflict in the
evidence as to the amount of discretion allowed the decorator in the
choice of merchandise and props or the actual arrangement of the dis-
plays, it is clear that the basic designs, layouts, and general content
of the displays are determined by the display director. The latter, in
turn, works in close coordination with personnel from other store di-
visions including the store fashion coordinator, departmental buyers,
and the advertising unit. Props for use in the displays are either
purchased or fabricated in the department by the carpenters and
painters.
While the decorators have a central location within the display de-
partment where they check in and out and receive assignments, their
work requires them to go to all parts of the store and brings them
into contact with a comparatively large number of the store personnel.
They are paid on a salary basis, as are other employees within the
storewide unit, and no appreciable variation occurs between their
working conditions, hours, and "fringe benefits" and those of the re-
mainder of the unit. While past experience in the field appears to be
of assistance in securing employment at the store as a decorator, it is
not a prerequisite. The Employer at one time participated in a
Veterans' Administration-approved program for on-the-job training
of decorators. However, the record fails to establish the existence of
any craft or professional skills or status among these employees. Upon
the entire record, we find that the Employer's decorators and assistants
do not possess skills, duties, interests, and conditions of employment
sufficiently divergent from those of other employees to warrant sever-
ance from the established bargaining unit.° Accordingly, as the
unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
6 See E. W. Edwards d Sons, 85 NLRB 829; Frederick Loeser d Company, Inc., 85
NLRB 281; and Dey Brothers d Co., 85 NLRB 689. Cf. Goldblatt Brothers, Inc., 86
NLRB 914.