Father & Son Shoe Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1479 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

FATHER & SON SHOE STORES , INC. 1479,
work on, any goods, articles , materials or commodities, to perform any services,
where an object thereof is to force or require James Knitting Mills, Inc., to
recognize or bargain with us in the collective bargaining unit of employees
covered by such certification.
KNIT GOODS WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 155,
INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT
WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Father & Son Shoe Stores , Inc. and Department Store Sales Em-
ployees' Union, Local 1515, affiliated with Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC--
5316. May 7,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jewel G. Maher, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 Leedom and Members
Bean and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-'
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.2
I At the hearing, the hearing officer ruled , over the objection of the Employer, that the
Petitioner could cross-examine the Employer's district manager as to the actual monetary
starting wages received by employees in the proposed unit . Notwithstanding this ruling,
the witness , on advice of counsel, refused to give dollar and cents figures, but instead
gave percentages intended to show the spread between minimum and maximum hiring
rates . Thereupon , the Petitioner moved that the hearing officer strike all the testimony
of the witness. The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board . This was an
error. According to the Board's Rules and Regulations ( Section 102 .58 (d) (3 ) ), this
kind of motion is directed to the discretion of the hearing officer . Approximately a month
after the close of the hearing, the Employer itled a request for special permission to appeal
from the original ruling of the hearing officer. The request is denied because it was not
made "promptly" as required by the Board 's Rules ( Section 102.57 (c)). We have,
however, considered the hearing officer 's rulings and we do not consider them prejudicial
to any of the parties . We shall not strike any testimony, but leave and consider the
record as it was made before the hearing officer.
2 The Employer moved to dismiss the petition upon the grounds that ( a) the Regional
Director improperly granted the Petitioner leave to withdraw a prior petition for the
117 NLRB No. 193.
1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of sales employees in
37 of the Employer's retail stores in Chicago, Illinois, and vicinity.
In the alternative, it requests separate units for each of the 37 stores.
However, the Petitioner is willing to participate in an election in any
unit which the Board finds appropriate. The Employer contends that
only a unit embracing the employees in all 48 stores in its Chicago
district is appropriate. There is no history of collective-bar-gaining.
The Employer is a Delaware corporation and operates a chain
of shoe stores throughout the United States. Its headquarters are lo-
cated in Endicott, New York. For administrative purposes the Em-
ployer's operations are divided into 4 districts. The Chicago district,
here involved, covers 48 stores in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
Of the 37 stores requested in the petition, 32 are located in the City of
Chicago, and 5 in adjacent suburbs. Ten of the other 11 stores in the
District are within 15 to 90 miles from Chicago, and the remaining
store, in Galesburg, Illinois, is approximately 180-190 miles distant.
The Chicago district is headed by a district manager and 2 assistant
district managers who closely supervise and direct the operations
of the 48 stores.. The district manager, under the guidance of the
Employer's home office, sets the policy for sales promotion, advertis=
ing, size of work force, personnel, wages, and employee training.
All stores carry the same type of merchandise and have uniform win-
dow displays. Bills for light, heat, and maintenance are handled cen-
trally through the district office. A stock of merchandise is kept at the'
district warehouse for shipment to the stores. The district manager
and his assistants visit all stores regularly for inspection purposes
and for periodic inventories. Wage rates and employee benefits .are
uniform for all stores. The employees have districtwide seniority
and are frequently interchanged and transferred between the stores
in the district. The record shows that 166 transfers and interchanges
were effected during the 3 years preceding the hearing. Hiring of
employees is done either by the district office or by the managers of
the individual stores in accordance with the policy laid,down,by the
district office and subject to investigation and clearance by the district
manager. The store managers are authorized to discharge employees
only for dishonesty, intoxication, or abusiveness. For other reasons
same employees without prejudice to the immediate filing of another petition, (b) the
Petitioner is not in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act, because individuals per-
forming the functions of officers have not filed the necessary non-Communist affidavits,
and (c ) the requested unit is inappropriate.
As to ( a), the Petitioner withdrew its earlier petition in order to permit an individual
who, the Employer contended , was an officer to file a non - Communist affidavit The
Regional Director committed no abuse of discretion in permitting the withdrawal without
prejudice . As to ( b) the fact of compliance with Section 9 (h) is not litigable in this
proceeding . Standard Cigar Company, 117 NLRB 852 We have satisfied ourselves
administratively that the Petitioner is in compliance with , Section 9 ( h) Finally, the
Employer 's contentions as to the inappropriateness of the unit , are disposed of in para-
graph 4, supra Accordingly , the Employer 's motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INCORPORATED 1481
they have to obtain authorization by the district manager. The store
managers may recommend' increases in salary which may, however,
be granted only by the district manager.
On these facts, and on the'entire record, we find that the Employer's
operations are centralized to a high degree with respect to all 48
retail stores in the Chicago district. Because of the centralization of
'these operations, the frequent interchange of personnel between the
-'stores, the uniform wages and working conditions of the employees,
and the fact that the District is the Employer's administrative divi-
sion, we find that only a unit embracing the employees of all the stores
in the Chicago district is appropriate.' As the Petitioner is willing
to participate in an election in a districtwide unit, and has made a
sufficient showing of interest in such unit, we shall direct an elec-
tion therein.
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 full-time and regular part-time sales employees employed in
the 48 retail stores comprising the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, dis-
trict, including stores in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana,-but exclud-
ing store managers, temporary and seasonal employees,4 professional
employees, guards, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 Sparkle Markets Company , 113 NLRB 790 ; Jewel Food Stores, 111 NLRB 1368.
4 The parties stipulated that among the part-time employees , only those who had
worked 14 or more hours in each of 10 weeks in the 13-week period prior to this Direction
of Election should be eligible to vote. In accordance with that stipulation , we exclude
all part- time employees working less than the indicated number of hours.
'Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated and Franklyn Doak, Pe-
titioner and Retail Clerks Union Local 373, Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association , AFL-CIO. Case No. 2O-RD-151. May 7,
1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before M. C. Dempster,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error, and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel,[Members Murdock; Rodgers, and Bean].
The Union contends, that the petition should be dismissed because
(1) the Petitioner, in effect, is a supervisor, and (2) he was aided in
117 NLRB No. 192.