Dean Witter

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 15, 1971

189 N.L.R.B. 785 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

DEAN WITTER AND CO INC. 785
Dean Witter and Company, Inc. and Securities' Guild
Division of Professional , Office & Industrial Union,
affiliated with MEBA, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
20-RC-9298.
April 15, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held on May 5 and 11, 1970, before Hearing
Officer Philip Mounger. Following the hearing and
pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations and State-
ments of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by
direction of the Regional Director for Region 20, this
case was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer filed a
brief.
On September 14, 1970, the Board after duly
considering the entire record, remanded the proceed-
ings to the Regional Director for the purpose of
reopening the record to conduct a supplementary
hearing to receive additional evidence relating to unit
composition and scope. Pursuant to the remand a
supplementary hearing was held on November 10,
1970, before Hearing Officer John C. Montoya.
Thereafter, the Employer filed a supplementary brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearings and finds no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds-
1. Dean Witter and Company, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation engaged in the sales of securities through-
out the United States. During the past year, the
Employer sold securities whose value exceeded
$500,000, and during the same period the Employer has
purchased securities whose value exceeded $ 50,000
from directly out of the State of California. Contrary
to the contentions of the Employer, we find that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act, and that i(will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assertj urisdiction herem.i
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Union's petition seeks an election among
the Employer's office clerical employees working at
154 Sutter Street, San Francisco. At the hearing, the
Union declared in the alternative that all the office
clerical employees in the San Francisco offices would
constitute a unit. The Employer contends that
appropriate units of office clerical employees are:
1. The Company's administrative unit known
as the "Northern Division"; or
2. A unit comprised of the Company's three
San Francisco locations.
The Employer is a nationwide broker-dealer doing
business throughout the United States. For adminis-
tration purposes, the Company is divided into four
geographical sections, each responsible to corporate
headquarters in San Francisco. The four divisions and
their respective headquarters are:
Northern Division - San Francisco
Southern Division - Los Angeles
Eastern Division - New York
Midwest Division - Chicago
The Northern Division consists of the Company's
branches in northern California, Nevada, Utah,
Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii, and the divisional
headquarters in San Francisco. Each branch is
administered by a branch manager who supervises a
staff of salesmen (registered representatives) and
supporting clerical personnel. The branch managers
are directly responsible to the manager of the
Northern Division and his assistant. Northern Divi-
sion headquarters maintains strict control over the
operations of the branches and is involved in every
decision of significance affecting branch operations.
Each branch manager of the Northern Division is
selected and trained by division headquarters in San
Francisco. After assuming their positions, branch
managers return to San Francisco for periodic
meetings of the Northern Division.
Branch operations are closely supervised and
controlled by division headquarters. The budget for
each branch, and even office decor, is determined in
San Francisco. Any expenditure in excess of $300 must
be approved by the Northern Division management.
The number of employees assigned to work at each
branch and their classification are decided by
Northern Division management.
Various clerical functions in the Northern Division
headquarters are utilized in order to properly serve
clients. These functions include cashiering, account-
ing, addressograph, mailroom, computers, margin
' See Harold P Goodbody, et at d/b/a Goodbody and Co, 182 NLRB
No 16
189 NLRB No. 119
786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clerks, trade adjustment clerks, as required by
different transactions.
Personnel policies relating to the hiring and firing of
all branch personnel are issued and revised at the
Northern Division office in San Francisco. All
employee insurance claim forms, timecards, and
employee complaints of a serious nature are referred
to Northern Division managment for proper han-
dling. The employees' paychecks are prepared and
mailed from Northern Division headquarters.
At the first hearing, the Employer noted that it was
to acquire the securities business and certain assets of
another broker-dealer, J. Barth & Co., on May 25,
1970. At that time J. Barth & Co. maintained one
facility in San Francisco, located at 404 Montgomery
Street, approximately 3 blocks from Dean Witter's
offices at 111 and 154 Sutter Street. As noted, this case
was remanded to the Regional Director for the
purpose of conducting a supplementary hearing to
receive evidence to determine if, after the acquisition
of J. Barth & Co., substantial changes would be
required in the administrative organization of the
Employer which might affect the composition and
scope of the unit sought in the petition.
Following the acquisition, the Employer relocated
Barth's 404 Montgomery Street sales facility to 4
Maritime Plaza, also in San Francisco. This was an
economy move designed to take advantage of a more
desirable location and a lower rent. With the move, all
the Employer's San Francisco facilities were brought
within a few blocks of each other. All employees at
404 Montgomery Street were moved to the new
location although a few clericals were sent to 111
Sutter Street and 154 Sutter Street locations. Also,
some clericals were moved from these latter two
locations to 4 Maritime Plaza. The hiring and firing of
clericals for the three locations are handled centrally
through the personnel department at 154 Sutter
Street. There are common policies at the three
locations with respect to rates of pay, hours, filling of
vacancies and promotions, holidays and vacations,
profit sharing, and fringe benefits. All are paid at the
same time for the same payroll period with checks
signed by the same individuals. In addition, there is
frequent interchange of personnel among the three
locations, both temporarily and permanently. There
are approximately 65-70 company employees who on
any given day may work at 4 Maritime Plaza and/or
154 and 111 Sutter Street. This substantial daily
interchange is required by virtue of the dependence of
departments in one location upon the work product of
employees in the same or different departments at
other locations. Also, where departments span physi-
cal locations, such as corporate finance department at
111 Sutter Street and 4 Maritime Plaza, and the
municipal bond department at 111 and 154 Sutter
Street and 4 Maritime Plaza, the office clerical
employees at all locations have common supervision.
From the foregoing, it is clear that a unit limited to
the employees at the 154 Sutter Street location would
be inappropriate in view of the functional interrela-
tionship among the three San Francisco branch
offices. However, as the Petitioner has in the alterna-
tive requested an election in a unit comprised of the
three San Francisco branch offices, we shall consider
the appropriateness of this latter unit.2
As indicated above, the hiring and firing of clericals
for the three locations are handled centrally through
the personnel department at 154 Sutter Street. There
are common policies at the three locations with
respect to rates of pay, hours, filling of vacancies and
promotions, holidays and vacations, profit sharing,
and fringe benefits. All are paid at the same time for
the same payroll period with checks signed by the
same individuals. Furthermore, there is frequent
interchange of personnel among the three locations,
both temporarily and permanently. Supervision is
structured primarily along departmental lines and is
not necessarily confined to any specific location, so
that an employee may work at one location and be
supervised from another location.
From these facts we find the office clerical employ-
ees at the Employer's three branches in San Francisco
are an identifiable unit with common working
interests and direct supervision. Accordingly, we shall
direct an election among these employees.
We find the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All office clerical employees at the Employer's
offices at 154 Sutter Street, 111 Sutter Street, and 4
Maritime Plaza, San Francisco, California, excluding
security representatives, confidential employees, de-
partment heads, assistant department heads, supervi-
sors and guards as defined in the Act.
2 We make no determination with respect to the appropriateness of a
unit comprised of all office clericals in the Employer's Northern Division
DEAN WITTER AND CO., INC 786A
[Direction of Election3 4 omitted from publication.]
3 As the Petitioner's showing of interest was in a smaller unit than is
here found appropriate, the Direction of Election is subject to an
administrative determination by the Regional Director for Region 20 that
the Petitioner's showing of interest in the unit of employees here found
appropriate is sufficient
4 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote,
all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, NLRB v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394
U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list,
containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 20 within 7
days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No
extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional
Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with
this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever
proper objection are filed