F. W. Woolworth Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 671 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY 671
warehouses , who are responsible to the common owner, work
out between them labor policies , wages, benefits , and person-
nel policies applicable to both warehouses . Merchandise for
the warehouses is purchased in carload lots. Deliveries to
the Employer ' s customers may be made from the warehouse
most conveniently situated . Employees are commonly ex-
changed between the warehouses , as necessary . The twoware-
houses are presently absorbing between them employees and
customers from a former branch operated by the Employer
at Covington , Louisiana.
In view of the uniform and integrated operation of the two
warehouses under common management , we find that the
unit sought by the Petitioner , restricted to employees at the
Bogalusa warehouse , is not appropriate .' Because the Peti-
tioner has not made a sufficient showing of interest in the
larger unit to justify an election , we will dismiss the petition.10
[The Board dismissed the petition filed in Case No. 15-RC-
1004 by Teamsters Local Union No. 5, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, AFL.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in
this volume.]
9Ross Lumber Company, 94 NLRB 636; Liebmann Breweries, Inc., 92 NLRB 1740
10 For this reason we find it unnecessary to consider in this decision the placement of
salesmen in the unit proposed by the Petitioner.
F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY, Compton, California and
VARIOUS EMPLOYEES OF F. W. WOOLWORTH COM-
PANY, 166 E. Compton Blvd., Compton , California, Peti-
tioners and RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL NO. 324,
AFL. Case No. 21-UD-13. December 31, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (e) (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing in this case was
held before Irving Helbling, hearing officer. The hearing offi-
cer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. On May 1, 1952, the Employer and the Union entered into
a 2-year collective-bargaining contract expiring April 23,
1954, which contains a union-security provision in the nature
107 NLRB No 145.
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of maintenance of membership . The petition in this case was
filed August 10, 1953, and seeks an election to rescind the
Union ' s authority to make a union - security agreement. The
Union contends that the petition was not properly supported
by the requisite 30 percent of employees , a contention with
which we do not agree for reasons set out in paragraph
numbered 4 hereof.
We find that the petition in this case has been properly
filed and complies in all respects with the provision of Section
9 (e) of the amended Act.'
4. The contract in question covers a storewide unit of
employees and provides a limited form of union security, that
is, employees not union members at the time of its execution
are not required to become members. Specifically the con-
tract provision is:
Section 2 . Union Membership . ( a) All present employees
covered by this agreement who are members of the Union
or who become members of the Union shall remain mem-
bers as a condition of continued employment.
(b) The Employer may select and employ without re-
strictions ; however, all new employees who are covered
by this agreement shall become members of the Union
within thirty- one (31 ) days from hiring in date and shall
maintain membership in the Union , meeting lawful re-
quirements.
Testimony at the hearing showed that 12 employees who were
not members at the time of contract execution were not mem-
bers at the time of hearing , and that 4 of these were among the
15 employees who signed the petition herein. The Employer's
August 17, 1953, payroll contained the names of 42 employees
in the storewide unit, in which unit the Union was originally
certified as bargaining agent as the result of a consent elec-
tion and in which unit it secured union-security authorization
in September 1951. At the hearing the Union joined in a stip-
ulation that this unit was "an" appropriate unit, but it would
not stipulate that it was appropriate for the present deauthor-
ization proceeding . The Union contends that the unit for deau-
thorization purposes is the unit in which the union-security
provisions operate, not necessarily the collective -bargaining
unit , and that employees not required by the union-security
provisions of the contract to become union members should
not participate in the deauthorization election . It also contends
that employees not required to become members should not
be permitted to constitute part of the requisite 30 percent or
more who may file such a petition.
'Member Murdock , in accord with his dissent in Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company,
100 NLRB 1494, 1499 . is of the firm opinion that Section 9 ( e) (1) of the Act was not in-
tended to provide for revocation of union-security provisions of a contract during its term,
but considers himself bound by the majority position in that decision which has apparently
now been adopted by Chairman Farmer and Member Rodgers.
F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY 673
The Employer contends that the statutory deauthorization
provision, Section 9 ( e) (1), requires that the election be di-
rected among all employees in the bargaining unit as described
in the contract.
Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act, since the 1951 revision of it
which dropped the union-authorization provision,2 reads as
follows:
Upon the filing with the Board, by 30 per centum or more
of the employees in a bargaining unit covered by an agree-
ment between their employer and a labor organization
made pursuant to Section 8 (a) (3), of a petition alleging
they desire that such authority be rescinded, the Board
shall take a secret ballot of the employees in such unit
and certify the results thereof to such labor organization
and to the employer. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Board has not before considered a unit question of this
sort in a union deauthorization case and the legislative history
concerning the statutory provision throws no light upon the
problem.
In union authorization cases--before the 1951 amendment--the
Board repeatedly said that in most instances the unit appro-
priate for a union-authorization election would be coextensive
with that appropriate for collective bargaining under Section
9 (a).3 It made exceptions only in a case involving the impact
on a multistate unit of one State's antiunion-shop law,4 and in
a Globe-type proceeding.' After careful consideration the
Board believes that no analogy can be drawn from these ex-
ceptions to the case at hand. The statute in question, Section
9 (e) (1), is explicit in providing for an election in the contract
unit. In the absence of convincing legislative history to the
contrary, or an impediment similar to that in the Giant case, 6
we think this necessarily means an election among all em-
ployees in the bargaining unit as described in the contract,
not just those required by the union-security clause to become
union members.
The Union' s contention concerning those entitled to initiate
a deauthorization petition must be similarly answered. Section
9 (e) (1) defines the unit only once, both for petitioning and for
balloting purposes. Clearly the 30 percent or more of em-
ployees who may make the request are employees from the
2 Public Law No. 189, 82nd Congress, 1st Sess., Sec. (c), Oct 22, 1951.
3 See Furniture Firms of Duluth, 81 NLRB 1319; Kingsley Stamping Machine Co., 93 NLRB
1267, footnote 3; The Kroger Co., 95 NLRB 1513.
4Giant Food Shopping Center, Inc., 77 NLRB 791, 796.
5 Manufacturers' Protective Development Association, 95 NLRB 1059; Member Murdock
would not have made this exception as he deemed the employees polled separately mere
accretions to the unit.
MMember Rodgers does not deem it necessary to decide at this time whether an exception
should be made where there is an impediment respecting a State antiunion shop law similar
to the one considered by the Board in the Giant case, supra).
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining unit covered by the contract, not just those from
the group obligated to become union members by reason of
the contract.
We find that all employees of the Employer at its store at
166 E. Compton Boulevard, Compton, California, excluding
the store manager, the assistant store manager, salesfloor
supervisors, the personnel supervisor, the office supervisor,
the stockroom supervisor, learners, seasonal employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of an election under Section 9 (e) (1)
of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. and INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
THE PORTS OF PUERTO RICO (ILA)' Petitioner
PUERTO RICO MARINE CORP. ET AL. and UNION DE TRA-
BAJADORES DE ABORDO Y MUELLE DE PONCE INDE-
PENDIENTE, Petitioner
EASTERN SUGAR ASSOCIATES (A TRUST), Petitioner and
LOCAL UNION NO. 1745, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE-
MEN'S ASSOCIATION (ILA)
PUERTO RICO DRY DOCK AND MARINE TERMINAL, INC.:
and CONFEDERACION GENERAL DE TRABAJADORES
DE PUERTO RICO (AUTENTICA), Petitioner
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC. ET AL. and UNION DE EMPLE-
ADOS DE MUELLES DE PUERTO RICO, Petitioner
BULL INSULAR LINE, INC., Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN S ASSOCIATION DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
PORTS OF P. R.
MENDEZ & CIA., INC. and UNION DE EMPLEADOS DE MU-
ELLES DE PUERTO RICO, Petitioner
1 The Board officially notices that on September 23, 1953, the ILA was expelled from the
American Federation of Labor. The ILA, as hereinafter appears, will therefore be de-
signated as ILA only. The original order consolidating these cases included No. 24- RC- 198.
However, as the petitioner in that case, Union de Construccion Reparacion, Mantenimiento
y Trabajos Portuarios de Punta Santiago, P. R. (Ind) was out of compliance, the petition
was dismissed. Case No. 24-RC-200, Bull Insular Line and Union de Empleados de Muelles,
was withdrawn and Nos. 24- RC- 359 and 24-RM- 12, as indicated herein, were added to the
consolidated group.
2 The present name of this Employer appears as amended at the hearing. It was formerly
known as the Abarca Dry Dock Corporation.
107 NLRB No. 153.