F. W. Woolworth Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 11, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 732 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America, Local 1480, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
3 All bus operators employed by Jordan Bus Company and Denco Bus Lines, Inc., at their
Hugo, Oklahoma, terminal, including regular relief drivers, but excluding maintenance em-
ployees, office and clerical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4 On September 19, 1952, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America, Local 1480, AFL, was, and at all times since has been, and now
is, the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the above-described unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of section 9 (a) of the Act
5. By refusing on September 26, 1952, and at all times thereafter, to bargain collectively
with Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America, Local 1480, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all their employees in the
appropriate unit , and by unilaterally reducing the rates of pay of their employees , the Re-
spondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act
6 By reducing the pay rates of their employees in order to discourage membership of
their employees in Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach
Employees of America, Local 1480, AFL, the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act
7. The strike of November 10, 1952, was caused and prolonged by the unfair labor practices
of the Respondents.
8 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in and are now en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
9 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act
10. The Respondents did not unlawfully refuse to bargain collectively with Amalgamated
Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Local 1480,
AFL, in March and June 1952.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 631, A. F. of L. and CULI-
NARY WORKERS UNION LOCAL 294, HOTEL AND RESTAU-
RANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS ALLIANCE, AFL,
Petitioners. Cases Nos. 19-RC-1313 and 19-RC-1319. Jan-
uary 11, 1954
AMENDED DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions filed in Cases Nos. 10-RC-1313 and
19-RC-1319' by the Retail Clerks and the Culinary Workers,
respectively, the Board, on July 22, 1953, directed separate
elections among the employees at the Employer 's store in
Yakima, Washington.' In Case No. 19-RC- 1313, an election was
directed among all store employees, including the office super-
i These cases were consolidated for the purpose of hearing and decision.
2 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
107 NLRB No 150
F. W. WOOLWORTH CO 733
visor, the confidential office employee, the -stockroom super-
visor, and the stockroom boys, but excluding the lunch depart-
ment employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act, to determine whether they desired representation by the
Retail Clerks. In Case No. 19-RC-1319, the Loard directed an
election among the lunch department personnel, but excluding
all other employees, guards, and supervisors, to determine
whether they wished to be represented by the Culinary Workers.
On October 22, 1953, the Culinary Workers moved, without
opposition, to withdraw their petition in Case No. 19-RC-1319.
On October 29, 1953, the Employer petitioned the Board to
reconsider its Decision and Direction of Elections of July 22,
1953. In its petition the Employer urged that, in view of the
withdrawal of the Culinary Workers' petition in Case No. 19-RC-
1319, the Board should find a storewide unit appropriate and
direct an election therein. The Employer further urged that the
Board reconsider its finding that the office supervisor, the
stockroom supervisor, and the confidential office employee,
should be included in the unit because they were neither super-
visors nor confidential employees. Finally, the Employer re-
quested that the Board establish a new eligibility date to precede
the date of any amended Decision and Direction of Election
which the Board might issue. While the Retail Clerks agree
that a new eligibility date should be set, they otherwise oppose
the Employer's petition for reconsideration.
In its decision of July 22, 1953, the Board found that a sepa-
rate unit of lunch department employees was appropriate in
view of the mutuality of interests resulting from the nature of
their work, the absence of a collective-bargaining history, and
the fact that a labor organization sought to represent them
separately. However, the Board there noted that these employees
shared the same working conditions and benefits as the store
employees and were under the same general supervision. In
view of the identity of working conditions and the community
of interests which exist between the store employees and the
lunch department personnel, the absence of any bargaining
history, and the fact that the lunch department employees would
be deprived of an opportunity to select a bargaining representa-
tive because of the withdrawal of the Culinary Workers' peti-
tion, we find, in agreement with the Employer, that.a storewide
unit of employees is appropriate.3 Accordingly, we shall amend
our Decision and Direction of Election so as to direct an elec-
tion in such a unit.
With respect to the Employer's request that the Board re-
consider its finding that the office supervisor, the stockroom
supervisor, and the confidential office employee should be in-
cluded in the unit, the Employer relies upon our decision in a
recent case involving the same Employer." In that case, the
3 Walgreen Co. of New York, Inc., 97 NLRB 1101.
4F. W. Woolworth Co., Case No. 36-RC-959 (not reported in printed volumes of Board
Decisions).
337593 0 - 55 - 48
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit placement of the office supervisor and the stockroom super-
visor was not considered. Moreover, the parties stipulated to
the exclusion of the confidential office employee. Accordingly,
this decision forms no basis for altering our conclusion, based
upon the record made in the instant proceeding, that the office
and stockroom supervisors are not supervisors within the
meaning of the Act and that the confidential office employee is
not a "confidential" employee within the purview of the Board's
definition of that term. We therefore adhere to our previous
determination with respect to the unit placement of these indi-
viduals and we shall include them in the unit herein found ap-
propriate.
In agreement with the parties , we shall establish a new
eligibility date to precede the date of this amended Decision,
Order, and Direction of Election. We shall also grant the
Culinary Workers' motion to withdraw their petition filed in
Case No. 19-RC-1319.
[The Board granted the request for withdrawal of the petition
in Case No. 19-RC- 1319 and amended the Direction of Election.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
5 The record does not indicate whether the Retail Clerks desire to proceed to an election
In the unit herein found appropriate . Accordingly , the Retail Clerks may , if they so desire,
withdraw their petition filed in Case No. 19-RC-1313 upon notice to that effect given to
the Regional Director, in writing , within ten ( 10) days from the date of this amended Direction
of Election.
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY , INC., CON-
STRUCTION DIVISION , SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT , and IN-
TERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL,
LOCAL 470, Petitioner
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC., CON-
STRUCTION DIVISION, SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS,
AFL, LOCAL 160, Petitioner
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC., CON-
STRUCTION DIVISION, SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT and OF-
FICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 294,
AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos . 11-RC-470, 11-RC-490, 11-
RC-531. January 11, 1954
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act in Case No. 11-RC-470, a hearing was
107 NLRB No. 135.
i