Dolnick's Furniture Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 844 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

844 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dolnick's Furniture Co., Inc. and Teamsters Local
Union No. 688 , affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Case 14-RC-6905
August 10, 1972
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,' a
hearing was held before Leo D. Dollard, Hearing
Officer. Following the hearing, pursuant to Section
102.87 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statement of Procedure, Series
8, as amended, this case was transferred to the
National Labor Relations Board for decision. There-
after, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs, all
of which have been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case including the
briefs, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
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 Petitioner seeks a unit of warehouse
employees, drivers, and helpers employed at the
Employer's 10725 Trenton Avenue (Trenton) St.
Louis, Missouri, warehouse facility.2 The Employer
contends that the unit of the employees sought is
closely integrated with that of the other employees
who are employed in its retail operations at a
I The Petitioner filed its petition on December 10, 1971, and subsequent-
ly the parties entered into a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election On January 20, 1972, the Regional Director for Region 14
dismissed the petition The Petitioner pursuant to Section 102 71 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations on January 28, 1972 , filed an appeal to the
Board On February 27, 1972, the Board granted the Petitioner ' s appeal
from Regional Director 's ruling and ordered reinstatement of the petition
and directed that a hearing be held in this proceeding
2 At the hearing , the Petitioner indicated that it was willing to represent a
separate location. There is no bargaining history for
either group of these employees.
5. Dolnick's Furniture Co., Inc., operates a retail
furniture business in St. Louis, Missouri. These
operations are carried on at two separate locations:
(1) A retail residential-type furniture store on Page
Avenue (Page) and (2) another facility on Trenton
Avenue (Trenton)-one block away, which is mainly
a warehouse facility. There is a commercial-type
furniture showroom at Trenton which is separated
from the warehouse by a fixed wall. The Employer
employs six sales persons and four clericals in
addition to the warehouse employees. In the show-
room at Trenton there is one salesman and a clerical.
The other sales persons and clericals are employed at
Page. In the warehouse portion of Trenton, one
clerical, Mona Moore, handles invoices and receiving
tickets. Four employees perform warehouse func-
tions, including deliveries from the warehouse in two
trucks. Also, employed in the warehouse are two
employees who perform furniture refinishing.3
Two corporate officers, Ed Dolnick and Julian
Dolnick, exercise supervisory functions at the top
management level, Ed Dolnick is primarily responsi-
ble for supervision of the sales personnel and J.
Dolnick is primarily responsible for supervision of
warehouse personnel and clericals. The record
discloses that J. Dolnick's direct supervision over the
warehouse employees, including the drivers is limited
to less than 20 percent of the time, and during the
remainder of the time these employees are subject to
the immediate supervision of employee David
Nolting.4
The Employer contends that Nolting is not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The record
does not support this contention. The record reveals
that at all times pertinent herein, Nolting, in the
absence of direct supervision by J. Dolnick, has the
responsibility of routing drivers on their deliveries, he
decides which employee is to be a driver or a helper
on a given workday, directs warehouse employees as
to the functions they are to perform, authorizes time
off, selects employees to work overtime when such
overtime work is authorized by J. Dolnick pursuant
to Nolting's request for such overtime work, he is
paid a higher wage rate than the other employees, he
is considered by other employees to be their
supervisor, his recommendations for hiring new
clerical employee, Mona Moore . employed in the warehouse if the Board
included her
I The two furniture refinishers are represented by a union and are
excluded from the requested unit by stipulation of the parties The two
truckdrivers also perform warehouse duties when not occupied with their
truckdriving duties
a Nolting at the time of the filing of the petition herein was employed in
the warehouse facility, however, subsequently he became a furniture finisher
which necessitated his joining another union
198 NLRB No. 105
DOLNICK'S FURNITURE CO., INC. 845
employees have been accorded weight by J. Dolnick,
and he has directly hired an employee . In all the
circumstances , we find that Nolting is a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act and that in the
absence of J. Dolnick, he directly supervises the
warehouse employees.
The employees in the requested unit-warehouse-
men, drivers , and helpers-spend the majority of
their time working at the Trenton facility or
delivering furniture to customers . Occasionally, the
warehouse employees deliver furniture to and pickup
furniture from the Page facility. At times the
warehouse employees assist in helping move furni-
ture and setting up display areas at the Page facility.
The Employer argues that there is integration
between the two facilities because the employees are
more or less in constant contact with one another.
The evidence tends to show that the contact between
the warehouse employees and the sales and office
clericals is at most minimal and does not establish a
community of interest between the two groups of
employees. However, the evidence does establish that
there does exist a community of interest between the
warehouse employees and the warehouse clerical,
Mona Moore. A substantial part of the work she
performs at the warehouse is directly related to the
functions performed by the warehouse employees.
The facts of this case do not reveal the degree of
integration or the merger of operations as would
require our dismissal of the Petitioner 's request for a
separate unit of the employees employed in the
warehouse facility (Trenton), consisting of ware-
housemen , drivers, helpers, and warehouse clerical
employees .5 These employees constitute a homogene-
ous, identifiable, and distinct group having a close
community of interest . In view of the separate
location of the warehouse facility from the Page
facility where the petitioned-for employees perform
substantially all of their work, the autonomous day-
to-day operations of the warehouse employees under
separate and direct supervision, the lack of other
than minimal contact with the other employees of the
Employer, the absence of a history of collective
bargaining , and the fact that no other union requests
a broader unit, we find that a unit limited to the
warehousemen , drivers, helpers, and warehouse
clericals is appropriate.6
Accordingly, we find that 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 warehousemen , drivers, helpers, and warehouse
clerical employees employed at the Employer's
Trenton Avenue warehouse facility, St. Louis,
Missouri , excluding all office clerical employees,
sales people, professional employees, guards, supervi-
sors as defined in the Act , and all other employees.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN MILLER, dissenting:
The record does not persuade me that the unit
sought qualifies for separate representation. The
Board has repeatedly stated 7 that it will not permit a
separate warehouse unit unless the following three
factors are present : ( 1) the employees are under
separate supervision ; (2) they perform substantially
all their work tasks in buildings geographically
separated from those in which the bulk of the
remaining employees work; and (3) they are not
integrated , to any substantial degree , with employees
in the performance of their ordinary duties. Those
factors are not met here.
The Employer operates a retail furniture store only
one block from its warehouse , which also contains a
display and sales room for the purpose of selling
office furniture . The Employer' s relatively small
operation is directed by two brothers who are its
corporate officers . Although the warehouse function
is directed day-to-day to some extent by one Nolting,
who possesses some indicia of supervisory authority
and who is now a furniture refinisher , at least one of
the corporate officers makes numerous trips to the
warehouse each day and spends up to 25 percent of
his time there . Thus, it would be highly unrealistic to
find, on this record, substantial , autonomous, sepa-
rate supervision at the warehouse . Furthermore, the
warehousemen sought not only perform warehouse
and driving functions but work in the retail sales
store delivering furniture for display, setting up
displays, removing merchandise that is to be deliv-
ered to customers , and moving furniture to be
repaired or refinished . On occasions , sales people,
whom the petitioner would exclude, visit the ware-
house with customers for purposes of selling furni-
ture located at the warehouse . Obviously, sales of
office furniture are made exclusively from the
warehouse location. In view of this degree of
employee , functional , and supervisory integration,
and the fact that the two locations are separated
geographically by only a block, I would not depart
from the more recent Board decisions8 and would
find the requested unit inappropriate.
5 We find the Employer 's reliance on our decision in Levitz Furniture NLRB 777, Sears, Roebuck & Co , 180 NLRB 862, A Harris & Co, 116
Co, 192 NLRB No 13, to be misplaced NLRB 1628
6 J W Robinson Co, 153 N LRB 989, Joseph Loveman and Loeb Div of " Levitz Furniture Co, supra , Sears, Roebuck & Co , 191 NLRB No 84,
City Stores Co, 152 NLRB 719, Sears, Roebuck & Co , 151 NLRB 1356 Sears Roebuck & Co, 191 NLRB No 85
1 Levitz Furniture Co, 192 NLRB No 13, Sears, Roebuck & Co. 182