E. W. Edwards & Sons

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 829 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of E. W. EDWARDS & SONS,1 EMPLOYER and UNITED
PAPERWORBERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 3-RC-?59.Decided August 24,1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Richard Lip-
sitz, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2
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 Murdock].
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 Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations which
claim to represent employees of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Employer operates department stores in Syracuse, Rochester,
and Buffalo , New York, with its main office in Syracuse. At its
Syracuse store, the only one involved in this proceeding, some 800
employees are employed in both selling and nonselling jobs in ap-
proximately 125 departments. The Syracuse store is under the di-
rect supervision of a general manager who is also a vice-president of
the Company.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Edward's Employees Association , an independent labor organization , hereinafter
called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its current
contract with the Employer covering both selling and nonselling employees at the Syra-
cuse store.
8 After the hearing closed the Petitioner submitted certain evidence to the Board regard-
ing the supervisory status of one of the employees in the proposed unit. Because we are
dismissing the petition on other grounds, hereinafter discussed , we need not determine
the relevance or admissibility of the proffered evidence.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 141.
829
830 ]DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner seeks to sever from an existing store-wide unit of sell-
ing and nonselling employees at the Syracuse store, a group of em-
ployees engaged in interior land exterior display work and sign
painting.4 The Employer and intervenor oppose the severance of these
employees, contending that the existing store-wide unit is the only
appropriate one.
The employees sought to be separately represented by the Petitioner
have been represented by the Intervenor as part of the store-wide unit
for the past 11 years. These employees comprise a portion of the
sales promotion department. Of the eight employees the Petitioner
seeks, one is an exterior display decorator, one an interior display
decorator, four are helpers and two are sign painters. Also em-
ployed in the sales promotion-department are copywriters, ad lay-
out designers, fashion editors, and a comparison shopper. The
Petitioner does not desire to represent any of these employees. All
.of the employees in the department are under the immediate super-
vision of the sales promotion manager, and the department as a unit
is responsible for advertising and displaying the store's merchandise.
The exterior display decorator, with the assistance of three helpers,'
is responsible for all displays of merchandise in the store's exterior
show windows. The interior display decorator, who is also assisted
by a helper, is responsible for all interior displays and decorations in
the store, excluding department showcases. The two sign painters
spend a majority of their time making signs for both the interior
and exterior display decorators. Both the interior and exterior dis-
play decorators have had considerable experience and some technical
training in display decoration, and one of the sign painters has had
previous experience in his field. The helpers, however, have had no
previous training in their work. Previous helpers have had sim-
ilarly little special training and the only requirement appears to be
an interest in the work.
There has been some interchange of employees between the sales
promotion department and the stockroom or one of the merchandise
departments. Moreover, the record indicates that other employees,
such as those in the sporting goods or jewelry departments, 'decorate
the show windows involving merchandise from these departments and
the sign painters frequently receive orders for signs from one of
the department buyers or one of the other employees in the sales
promotion department. All the hiring for this department as well
as the rest of the store is done through the personnel department, and
4 The description of the unit appears as amended at the bearing.
6 One of the helpers is primarily engaged in building and painting fixtures while the
other two actually collect merchandise, dress mannequins, and assist in window arrange-
ment.
E. W. EDWARDS & SONS 831
the wages paid the decorators, their helpers, and the sign painters are
comparable to those paid other employees . All employees have the
same vacation and holiday plans and are given a uniform discount on
purchases . All employees work the same hours and are subject to
the ultimate general supervision of the store manager.
In view of the above facts, including the interchange of personnel
between the sales promotion department and other departments, the
fact that employees in other departments perform functions similar
to those performed by the employees sought by the Petitioner, the
community of interest existing among at least all employees in the
sales promotion department , the absence of traditional craft skills,
and the history of bargaining, we find the unit sought by the Petitioner
lacks cohesiveness and is too limited in scope for separate represen-
tation.6 Accordingly , as we have found the requested unit inappro
priate, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein by the United
Paperworkers of America, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
6 Matter of Frederick Loeser & Company, Inc., 85 N. L. R. B. 281.