Foreman & Clark, Inc.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 16, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1080 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) All office, clerical, and technical employees at the Employer's
Quincy, Massachusetts, shipyard, including piecework counters, time-
study employees, and rate setters, but excluding assistant engineers,
draftsmen, special draftsmen, tracers, technical aids assigned to draft-
ing work, all employees in the estimating and contracting department
(CB-1), managers department (AA), estimating department (AH),
industrial relations department (AJ) (excepting firemen, firewatchers,
safety inspectors, waitresses, and clerks in the North, Central, and
South First Aid Stations), general superintendents department (AB),
purchasing department . (AE) (excepting typists, stenographers,
clerks, and office helpers), department planners, senior planners, engi-
neers, secretaries, loopers, chauffeurs, executives, managerial em-
ployees, confidential employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(b) All assistant engineers at the Employer's Quincy, Massachu-
setts, shipyard, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
FOREMAN cQ, CLARK, INC., and LOCAL 297, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 21-IBC-1836.
January 16, 1952.
Supplemental Decision and Direction of Election
On August 31, 1951, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1 dis-
missing the petition in the above-entitled case. Thereafter, on No-
vember 9, 1951, the Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of
the Board's Decision and Order dismissing the petition.
Upon reconsideration of this case, and upon the entire record herein,
the Board now finds as follows:
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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Sections 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The petitioner seeks a unit composed of all tailor shop employees
including tailors, bushelmen-fitters, finishers, operators, rippers, and
pressers,2 working at the Employer's nine retail stores in southern
1 95 NLRB 1504.
2 The 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.
97 NLRB No. 153.
FOREMAN & CLARK, INC. 1081
California.s 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.
There is no bargaining history involved and none of the employees
in the Employer's stores involved in this proceeding is represented
by a union. In the previous decision in this matter the Board found
the unit sought by the Petitioner was inappropriate. Upon recon-
sideration, we conclude that that decision was erroneous . The tailors,
bushelmen-fitters, finishers, 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 remain-
der of the store is closed. They are separately located and in most
instances the salesmen are under direction not to enter their work
quarters.
We do not believe that the unit is inappropriate as a departmental
grouping merely because a limited number of these employees do a
small amount of work outside the department. This factor is not
determinative. It should be noted that such "interchange" as exists
is confined to instances where alteration department employees per-
form duties elsewhere in the store for, in most instances, minor por-
tions of their work tiipe.4 There is no instance in the record of non-
alteration employees doing work in the tailor shop. To hold that
such "interchange" indicates a community of interests obscuring
the distinctness of the alteration department's skill is to ignore its
limited nature. The instant situation is clearly distinguishable, ac-
cordingly, 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.5 That the Employer itself recognizes
the homogeneity and distinctiveness of its alteration shop employees
is evidenced by the fact that separate alteration shop units exist at
other stores of this Employer in the same general geographical area.
This is consistent with the practice in many other establishments.
3 These nine retail stores are located in Los Angeles , Long Beach , Hollywood , Huntington
Park, San Diego, Pomona , Burbank, and San Bernardino.
4 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
5 See Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 85 NLRB 1244, and Mandel 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.
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the entire record, we find that the alteration employees
constitute a basically highly skilled, distinct, and homogeneous depart-
mental group which, in the absence of any past or present representa-
tion on a broader basis, constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.6 Accordingly, we hereby set aside the
Board's original Decision and Order and shall direct that an election
be held.
We find that the employees in the men's and women's alteration
departments at the Employer's Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hollywood,
Huntingdon Park, San Diego, Pomona, Burbank, and San Bernardino,
California, retail establishments including tailors, bushelmen-fitters,
finishers, operators, rippers, and pressers but excluding all super-
visors within the meaning of the Act constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
,[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Direction of Election.
See Angelica Hosiery Mills, Inc., 95 NLRB 1284 , and cases cited therein for comparable
instances in which the Board has granted separate representation.
WHITE CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS , IRON SHIP BUILDERS
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL No. 433. Case No 10-CA-
1312. January 17,1952
Decision and Order
On September 10, 1951, Trial Examiner Peter F. Ward issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock,
and Styles].
97 NLRB No. 164.