Foreman & Clark, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 31, 195195 N.L.R.B. 1504 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation 1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Order Upon the basis of the entire record in this ease, we hereby order that the petition filed in the instant matter be, and it is hereby, dismissed. FOREMAN & CLARK, INC. and LOCAL 297, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 91-RC-1536. August 31,1951 • Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur Hailey, 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 Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock]. 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 employees of the Employer. 3. The alleged question concerning representation : The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all tailor shop employees including tailors, bushelmen-fitters, finishers, operators, rippers, and pressers,' working at the Employer's nine retail stores in southern California? Although the Employer agrees with the geographic scope of the proposed unit, it contends that an over-all unit including salesmen and will-call boys, in addition to those employees sought by the Petitioner, is the only appropriate unit. Separate units among employees of department or retail clothing stores are appropriate only when comprised of craft or professional employees, or where departments having a craft nucleus or composed of employees performing distinctive functions are involved.3 We have held that a group of alteration shop employees varying widely in skill, similar to those herein involved, are not entitled to separate repre- sentation on a craft basis .4 It is clear that the Employer's alteration shop employees are not professional employees. The only remaining reason for finding that these employees constitute a separate appro- I Employer sells both men's and women ' s apparel at some of its stores and the Petitioner desires to represent all employees involved in the alteration of men's or women's garments. 2 These nine retail stores are located in Los Angeles , Long Beach , Hollywood, Hunting- ton Park , San Diego , Pomona , Burbank , and San Bernardino. 2 See G? ossman Department Eta? e, Inc, 90 NLRB No. 275. 4 Robertson Brothels Department Store, Inc ., 95 NLRB 271. 95 NLRB No. 198. FOREMAN & CLARK, INC. 1505 priate unit would be on a departmental basis. However, the record in this case' reveals that the Employer's alteration shops are not organized along clear-cut, departmental lines because at only 3 of the Employer's 9 stores are the alteration shop employees separately super-, vised, > and at least 11 of the 45 employees sought serve in a dual capacity, performing other functions outside the alteration shop. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, we find no per- suasive` reason why the -alteration shop employees should constitute a separate appropriate unit on a craft, professional, or departmental basis. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and we shall therefore dismiss the petition. Order Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant matter be, and it is hereby, dismissed. MEMBER MURDOCK., dissenting : I do not believe that the conclusion of my colleagues to dismiss this petition properly reflects the ' factual situation in this case. The unit sought by the Petitioner is confined to tailor shop employees in a chain of clothing stores. There is no bargaining history involved and none of the employees in the Employer's stores are represented by a union . • Apart from the obvious nonprofessional status of alteration department employees, the majority concludes that these individuals are not craftsmen or a distinct,. homogeneous departmental group. It is true that a panel of the Board recently held in a decision in which I did not participate, that certain alteration employees of various clas- si fications were not craftsmen .5 On the other hand, it is equally clear that tailors, are highly skilled workmen with a tradition of craft status.e In my view, however, it is not necessary to determine whether the employees concerned in the instant petition are craftsmen within our definition of the term or not. The tailors, bushelmen-fitters, fin- " Robertson Brothers Department Store, Inc., supra , This case . involved the severance of a group of alteration department employees from an established broader unit. The skills of these employees were considerably limited and the decision did not determine the craft status of the one tailor in that unit. The instant record is not clear as to the degree of skill required of each of the classifications involved. However, it was testified at the hearing that a minimum of 3 years' experience is required for competence as a bushelman-fitter; with lesser degrees of skill required for less important classification. , The Board may take judicial notice, I believe , of the craftlike tradition of the tailoring "profession ." Separate representation of these employees has been recognized by indi- vidual employers in the retail field for a considerable length of time and alteration department units have frequently been represented by the Petitioner. See Ifirstein, Stores and Unions, -p. 151. See also, May Department Stores Co., d/b/a Famous-Barr Co. v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376, where the Supreme Court found that these employees bad "a - degree of self organization and special trade which sufficiently differentiates them from other employees ." ( Emphasis added.) . 1506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ishers, operators, rippers, and pressers at the Employer's stores are all engaged in manual work, much of it highly skilled, which is easily differentiated from the duties of the selling personnel. Tailor shop employees are paid on a different basis than other employees and in one instance work at times when the remainder of the store is closed. They are separately located and in most instances salesmen are under direction not to enter their work quarters. The majority decision apparently considers the unit to be inappropriate, as a departmental -grouping because a limited number of these employees do a limited amount of work outside the department. I do not consider this fac- tor to be determinative. It should be noted that such "interchange" is confined to instances where alteration department employees per- forim duties elsewhere in the store for, in most instances, minor por- tions of their work 'time.' There is no instance in the record of nonalteration employees doing work in the tailor shop. To hold that such "interchange" indicates a community of interest obscuring the distinctness of the alteration departments' skills is to ignore its lim- ited nature. The instant situation is clearly distinguishable, accord-' ingly, from those cases in which we have held a unit of alteration employees to be inappropriate because it did not include all personnel performing that type of work.8 - On the entire record, I find that the alteration employees constitute a basically highly skilled, distinct, and homogeneous departmental group which, in the absence of any past or present representation on a broader basis, could constitute a 'unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining." ' The incidents noted in the record almost entirely concern relief selling done by the lesser skilled employees or janitor work done by individuals who also do the pressing in the tailor shop. In none of these instances does the -employee perform a majority of his or her work outside the department. ' See Carson Pirie Scott & Co ., 75 NLRB 1244 ; and Handel Brothers , Inc., 77 NLRB 512. In these , the only two instances where the Board has so held , the units requested did not encompass both men 's and women's alteration departments despite the basic similarity of the work . Extent of organization was accordingly found to , be the basis, for the proposed grouping . Such a situation is, of course , not present in the instant case: 9 See Angelica Hosiery Mills, Inc., 95 NLRB 1284, and cases cited therein for comparable instances in which the Board has granted separate representation. MARTIN PARRY CORPORATION 1 and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFr AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 12, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1228. August 31, 1951 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 Carroll L. Martin , hearing ' The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 95 NLRB No. 146. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation