City Stores Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 1129 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

LOVEMAN, JOSEPH AND LOEB, DIV. OF CITY STORES CO. 1129
the Supreme Court rejected the Board's holding in the Tree Fruits
case. (N.L.R.B. v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers d Warehousemen,
Local 760, 377 U.S. 58.)
Upon reconsideration of these cases 2 in light of the Supreme Court's
aforementioned decision, we find that Respondent did not violate Sec-
tion 8(b) (4) (ii) (B) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. How-
ever, we reaffirm our original finding that Respondent violated Section
8 (b) (4) (i) and (ii) (A) of the Act.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby orders that the Decision and Order issued
on December 30, 1963, be amended by deleting from the Order therein
paragraph 1(a) and renumbering the subsequent paragraph accord-
ingly and by deleting from the notice the second full indented
paragraph.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
8 For the reasons stated in his partial dissent in the original Decision , Member Brown
would not find that Respondent violated Section 8 ( b) (4) (1) and (ii) (A) of the Act. He
would therefore dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Loveman , Joseph and Loeb, Division of City Stores Company and
Local No. 375, International Ladies Garment Workers' Union,.
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-5542. June 209, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer H. Carlton
Bryan, Jr. The Hearing Officer's rulings are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. Petitioner claims to represent certain employees 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.
1 Petitioner contends that the Hearing Officer erred in not admitting into evidence con -
tracts which might indicate an industry practice in regard to the unit sought by Peti-
tioner. In view of our disposition of the petition , we find it unnecessary to rule on.
Petitioner's request that the Hearing Officer be overruled and the contracts admitted into.
evidence.
147 NLRB No. 106.
1130 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Under the name of "Loveman's," the Employer operates three
retail department stores in the State of Alabama. The principal store,
and a warehouse which stocks goods for all three stores are located in
downtown Birmingham, seven blocks apart. One of the branch stores
is in Bessemer, about 14 miles from the center of Birmingham, and the
other is located in Montgomery, 100 miles away. Between 850 and
1,000 employees work full time at the 2 Birmingham establishments,2
as compared with 50 at Bessemer and 135 at Montgomery.
Petitioner seeks to represent a unit,consisting of the nonsupervisory
employees in three departments, or "workrooms," at the Birmingham
store: Ladies' alterations (department 81) ; men's and boys' altera-
tions , also called the tailoring shop (department 85) ; and the drapery
workroom (department 71). No other union represents or seeks to
represent any other employees of the Employer. Both Petitioner and
the Employer often refer to all three of these departments as the
"alteration" departments of the store. In September 1963, shortly
before the hearing in this case, there were approximately 20 employees
in; ladies' alterations, 8 in the tailoring shop, and 17 in the drapery
workroom. Although contending that all 45 of these employees com-
prise a single appropriate unit, Petitioner would also be willing to
represent each departmental group separately, or any 2 in combination.
The Employer contends that none of. the three "alteration" groups
constitutes an appropriate unit for bargaining purposes, either sep-
arately or in combination with either or both of the others. It main-
tains that nothing less than a citywide unit, consisting of all the selling,
nonselling, and workroom employees at the Birmingham store and
warehouse, would be appropriate. In requesting dismissal of the peti-
tion on this ground, the Employer also suggests that the employees at
its Bessemer and Montgomery stores ought to be included in the same
unit with the Birmingham employees, since all three stores are com-
pletely integrated from a management standpoint, and all the em-
ployees in all locations and departments have the same fringe benefits,
hours of work, and other conditions of employment .3
The record discloses the following pertinent facts with regard to
the three groups of Birmingham employees covered by the petition:
The ladies' alterations department and the tailoring shop fit and alter
women's and men's clothing sold in the various "ready-to-wear" de-
2 The standard workweek for all employees consists of five 8-hour days, but the Employer
apparently has a substantial number of selling employees who regularly work part-time,
i.e., less than 40 hours per week. The "census " figure for the Birmingham store and
warehouse , given above , is expressed in terms of so-called 40 -hour equivalents. For ex-
ample, two employees working 20 hours weekly are counted as one.
3 As the Board held in J. W. Mays, Inc., 147 NLRB 968 a single store which is part
of a chain of department stores may be an appropriate unit under the proper circum-
stances . Inasmuch as the employee complements as well as the alteration departments of
Employer 's two other stores are separately supervised , there is no evidence of interchange
and they are physically quite separate , a unit of the employees located in the Birmingham
store is appropriate.
LOVEMAN, JOSEPH AND LOEB,.DIV. OF CITY STORES CO. 1131
partments of the store; the drapery workroom cuts and sews draperies
and slipcovers made from fabrics sold in the yardgoods departments.
All three "alteration" departments occupy partitioned-off areas in the
basement of the. store , which consists of two buildings separated by an
alley but connected by bridges at all floors above the street level. The
tailoring shop is located in a corner of one building, the ladies' altera-
tions and drapery workrooms are next to each other on the far side of
the other building. All three are equipped with the same or similar
types of sewing machines and pressing devices.. There is one supervi-
sor in each department .4 ' The head of the drapery workroom is also
the buyer in charge of.the departments elsewhere in the store, where
lamps and drapery materials are stocked and sold, but the supervisors
in the tailoring shop and- ladies' alterations have no jurisdiction over
employees outside their own workrooms.
A majority of the nonsupervisory employees in all three depart-
ments are women who operate sewing machines. There are 10 such
seamstresses in the drapery ' workroom, some working primarily on
draperies and others on slipcovers. The remaining employees in that
department are: a (female) presser; a woman w io cuts, fits, and in-
stalls slipcovers in customers' homes; two "boys" who also go to
customers ' homes to take measurements and install draperies; a woman
who answers the telephone and keeps timesheets and other records;
and two or three women who do certain specialized jobs entailed in
making draperies, such as "tabling" the strips of material or making
swags and valances. In ladies' alterations; there are seamstresses,
fitters (who are also seamstresses ), pressers, and a clerk, all of them
women. The fitters spend 40 to 60 percent of their working time in
the departments where women's garments are sold; the rest of the
time, they operate sewing machines in the workroom. In the tailor-
ing shop, the division of work is much the same, except that all fitting
is done by the department supervisor, who is a full-fledged tailor.
The rank-and-file employees, who spend all their ,time in the work-
room , are: seamstresses ; (male) pressers; and two women who keep
records. and perform such tasks as marking, ripping, and packing
finished garments for delivery. - Unlike selling personnel, who are
given only 1 or 2 days of instruction when they are first hired, the
seamstresses in all three workrooms require several weeks to several
months on-the-job training before they can work independently on
the various machines, even though the Employer hires only women
4 The parties agree that Catherine Miller and Inez Slimp , in the drapery workroom, are
not supervisors within the statutory definition, although Miller, the departmental clerk,
signs the other employees ' attendance records , and Slimp would be expected to lay out
work for the other employees if an emergency should arise when the department head is
out of the city. Lucy Rasberry , in ladies' alterations , also signs the other employees'
attendance records and takes "charge ," if necessary , when the department head is off duty.
Rasberry appears to have no more authority than Slimp, however , and we find that she
is not a supervisor , although Petitioner contends otherwise.
1132 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who have had substantial prior experience in sewing . Once they are
trained , moreover , all the , "alteration" employees remain permanently
attached to their respective departments , and do no other nonselling
or selling work of any kind . There are no other employees on the
Birmingham payroll , in either the store or the warehouse , engaged
in fitting, pressing, or sewing on any kind of garments , or in making
draperies or slipcovers .5
In view of the foregoing facts, Petitioner argues, and we agree,
that the employees in the three "alteration" departments are at once
allied with each other and set apart from all the other Birmingham
employees by their common skills and training in the needle trades.
As detailed below, moreover , these employees have been collectively
represented by Petitioner for many years , whereas all the Employer's
other employees remained unorganized.
Sometime in the early 1940's, Petitioner and its international parent,
International Ladies Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, herein-
after called the ILG, began organizing the alteration employees-
including employees engaged in making draperies and slipcovers, if
any-of department and retail clothing stores in Birmingham. In
December 1944, at the conclusion of a representation proceeding before
the Board , the ILG was certified as the statutory bargaining agent of
the "sewers , fitters . . . and alteration employees in all of the sew-
ing and alteration rooms" of the Pizitz Department Store , one of the
Employer 's competitors .6 During the next year and a half , the ILG
negotiated a contract with the Pizitz Company ,' and worked to or-
ganize the "alteration" employees of other Birmingham stores, in-
cluding Loveman 's, the Employer in this case . Early in 1946, the
ILG conducted a 90-day strike against these stores, seeking recogni-
tion as well as economic gains for the alteration employees. In May
of that year, the strike was settled on the following terms : In separate
but identical letters addressed to Benjamin Leader , whose law
firm represented each of them in negotiating with the ILG, the em-
ployers , including Loveman's, promised to reinstate the striking em-
ployees without discrimination ; to maintain a 40-hour week and other
specified conditions of employment in the alteration departments; to
continue existing fringe benefits with "all alteration workers" par-
ticipating therein; and to establish certain wage rates for all em-
6 Apparently the Employer does no upholstery work, although there is a "Furniture
Workroom" in the warehouse , where furniture is touched up or refinished . The carpet
workroom , also located in the warehouse , is equipped with, a rug-binding machine. As
the Employer 's personnel manager conceded at the hearing , however , this machine Is al-
together different from the sewing machines in the alteration and drapery workrooms.
d Employees making draperies and slipcovers were included in this unit . See Louis
Pizitz Dry Goods Company , 56 NLRB 1026 , 1028 ( directing an election ), and 59 NLRB
919 (certifying the ILG).
7 The Board referred to this contract In its November 1946 decision in a later Pizitz
case, 71 NLRB 579, 587. The contract was apparently executed sometime in 1945.
J. P. STEVENS COMPANY, EXPOSITION PLANT 1133
ployees in the "alteration" classifications. Upon being notified by
Leader that each of the employers involved had signed this
letter,' the ILG called off the strike and apparently withdrew certain
representation petitions they had filed with the Board. At the same
time, the parties agreed that if the ILG had any grievances, com-
plaints, or demands in the future, such matters would be taken up
in the first instance with Leader acting as his clients' labor
representative.
From the time of the 1946 settlement until Leader's death in
1961, Loveman's, as well as several other stores such as Pizitz, con-
tinued to deal with Petitioner through Leader. No formal agreement
was ever executed but, nevertheless, Petitioner was apparently rec-
ognized as the de facto bargaining representative of the "alteration"
employees. Over the years, Petitioner's efforts succeeded in obtaining
several wage increases, in having one employee reinstated after she had
been fired, and in settling a number of grievances. Throughout this
period, Petitioner attempted to act solely for employees who worked in
the departments presently petitioned for, and the breakdown in the in-
formal system of bargaining is apparently the result of Leader's
death.
On the entire record, we find that the "alteration" employees com-
prise a skilled, distinct, and homogeneous group, and that they con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.' We shall direct an
election in the following described unit :
All alteration and drapery department employees employed by the
Employer at its Birmingham, Alabama, store, excluding supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 At least one copy of the same letter was endorsed by representatives of both the
International ILG and Local 375.
g Foreman & Clark, Inc ., 97 NLRB 1080. Member Leedom bases his determination of
the appropriateness of this unit on all the circumstances of the case , including prior rep-
resentation of this unit by this Petitioner.
J. P. Stevens Company, Exposition Plant and Textile Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO, CLC. Case No. 10-CA-54128.
June 29, 19641
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 14, 1964, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
147 NLRB No. 108.