Genesco, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1334 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Genesco , Inc.' and Boot and Shoe Workers ' Union , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case No. 06-RC-14442. January 13, 1961
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 Aaron Z. Dixon, hear-
ing 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball].
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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Main Street plant at Nashville, Tennessee.
The Employer contends that because of the integrated operation and
centralized control, the appropriate unit should consist of all produc-
tion and maintenance employees in all the shoe manufacturing plants,
processing terminals, and supply terminals of its Southern Shoe
Manufacturing Division. In the alternative, the Employer main-
tains that the plants in the Nashville area possess a degree of integra-
tion and centralized control which preclude the establishment of any
unit smaller than one encompassing all the Nashville area plants.
Relating to these contentions, the parties agreed to a stipulation which
incorporates herein the record, evidence, testimony, contentions, ex-
hibits, and positions of the parties in a prior proceeding involving
another plant of the Employer.' The Board found in that case, con-
trary to the contention of the Employer, that a single-plant unit was
appropriate. Moreover, in a series of decisions involving various
plants in the Employer's Southern Shoe Manufacturing Division,
the Board has consistently held the single-plant unit to be appro-
priate 4 As the record in the instant case indicates that there have
been no significant or substantial changes in the Employer's opera-
1 Formerly General Shoe Corporation.
2 Formerly Case No. 10-RC-4660.
3 General Shoe Corporation, Case No 10-RC-4044, issued May 21, 1958 (not published
in NLRB volumes).
4 General Shoe Corporation, 117 NLRB 1704, 114 NLRB 381 ; 113 NLRB 905; 109
NLRB 618.
129 NLRB No. 167.
GENESCO, INC. 1335
tions, we find that a unit limited to the Main Street plant is
appropriate.
The parties are in dispute as to the composition of the unit. The
record shows that the Main Street plant is primarily engaged in the
assembly, storage, and shipping of men's shoes. All operations are
confined to a single three-story building. The plant produces a high-
priced (Haan) and a medium-priced line of shoes with a separate
assembly division under a superintendent for each line of shoes. The
various department managers in each such division report to their
respective superintendents on matters affecting production. There
are also several departments in the plant which handle materials for
other plants in addition to those used in the Main Street plant. These
latter departments on matters of production report directly to the
central offices of the Employer's Southern Division. All employees
at the Main Street plant share the same employee benefits. Seniority
is plantwide and all hiring is performed by the Main Street personnel
manager.
In essence, the Petitioner seeks a unit of those employees who are
engaged in the assembly process. The unit sought includes those de-
partments which report directly to the high-priced and medium-
priced shoe superintendents. It would exclude those departments
which report directly to the central offices on matters of production.
The Employer contends that the amended unit request of the Peti-
tioner seeks to exclude certain production and maintenance em-
ployees at the plant and is therefore an inappropriate unit.5 The
Petitioner would exclude and the Employer include the following
disputed departments.
Shipping department: There are approximately 46 employees in
this department whose functions are to break down semifinished and
finished shoes into sizes and prepare them for shipment or storage.
They also prepare bills of lading and make shipments to customers.
The department manager reports directly to the central offices on
matters of production. The record shows that the shipping depart-
ment works in close conjunction with the treeing departments at the
plant which the Petitioner would include in the unit. Several of the
shipping department employees are required on occasion to perform
duties in the high-priced or Haan treeing department. During the
past 4 or 5 years, there have been 35 transfers of employees between the
shipping department and other departments in the plant.
Returned goods department: There are approximately 42 employees
in this department. The department handles shoes received from all
plants in the Employer's Southern Shoe Manufacturing Division.
5 The Employer 's motion to dismiss on the ground that the Petitioner has refused to
consent to an election in the unit as originally stated in the petition is denied. As the
Employer has declined to recognize the Petitioner in the amended unit, a question con-
cerning representation exists which the Board will undertake to determine.
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The employees inspect, rag, and clean shoes returned by customers and
if such shoes are suitable for resale they are routed to the shipping
department for storage and future delivery to other customers.
During the past 4 or 5 years, there have been approximately 83 trans-
fers of employees between this department and other departments in
the plant. There are also 16 employees in the department who regu-
larly spend 50 percent of their time performing work in various as-
sembly departments.
Damaged shoe department: The two employees in this department
handle shoes which cannot be processed in the returned goods depart-
ment. Although it has a separate department manager, we find the
department is in effect an adjunct of the returned goods department.
Heelpad department: The function of approximately 16 employees
in the department is to cut linings and to cut, stamp, process, and case
heelpads which are used to cover the shoe insole. The department
produces heelpads for the Main Street plant and six other shoe assem-
bly plants in the Employer's Triangle Division. All the employees in
the department have worked at one time or another in other de-
partments in the plant. During the past 4 or 5 years, there have been
38 transfers between this department and other departments. At
least 29 of the 38 transfers involved departments which the Petitioner
presently seeks to include in the unit. On occasions of illness, vacation,
or other absence, employees from other departments are called upon
to work in the heelpad department.
Box department: The department, with 15 employees, produces
shoeboxes for several of the Employer's plants upon receipt of orders
from the central offices. Within the past 4 or 5 years, there have been
approximately 21 transfers between this department and the various
assembly departments sought by the Petitioner. The Board has held
in a recent case,e involving the same question and the same parties at
a different plant of the Employer, that the box department employees
should be included in the production and maintenance unit. For
essentially the same reasons, we shall include the box department em-
ployees in the unit herein.
As we find these departments are substantially integrated in and
part of the production operations at the Main Street plant, we shall
include the employees in the shipping, returned goods, damaged shoe,
heelpad, and box departments in the unit.'
e Genesco , Inc., Cases Nos. 26-RC-1339, 26-RC-1400, issued June 20, 1960 ( not pub-
lished in NLRB volumes).
7 Comfort Slipper Corporation, 111 NLRB 188. The Petitioner relies upon the Board's
decision in General Shoe Corporation, 92 NLRB 136, which involved the same plant of the
Employer . There, the Board found a warehouse unit, including the shipping, returned
goods, and damaged goods departments to be appropriate However, as the Petitioner was
unsuccessful in the subsequent election, there was no resultant bargaining history. We
believe the instant case is readily distinguishable from the prior case in view of the type
of unit requested and the evidence in the instant case of such significant factors as fre-
quent interchange and transfer , not present in the prior proceeding.
GENESCO, INC. 1337
Machine storage department : The duties of approximately 12 em-
ployees in this department consist in maintaining and storing extra
machinery for the shoe assembly plants in the Southern Division.
'The employees, classified as machinists, have acquired their skills
through on-the-job training in the plant. The department is located
in a separate room in the plant. The records shows that the employees
are required to perform maintenance work in other departments in
the plant. However, they also perform work at other plants in the
Southern Division on an irregular basis. During the past 4 or 5 years,
there have been 10 transfers between this department and other de-
partments in the plants, of which 8 transfers were with departments
the Petitioner would include in the unit. We find that the machine
storage department employees are of a type that are normally included
in a production and maintenance unit and we shall therefore include
them.'
General maintenance department: Fourteen of the twenty-six em-
ployees in this department prepare dies and machine parts for the
plant and repair machinery for the heelpad department. In the course
of their duties, they are also called upon to make machine parts and
cabinets for other plants in the Southern Division. Four of these
fourteen employees make continuous trips to other plants in the divi-
sion to perform major maintenance duties. In addition to the 14 em-
ployees described, there are 8 employees who perform general main-
tenance duties solely at the Main Street plant. The remaining four
employees in the department are classified as watchmen. During the
past 4 or 5 years, there have been 10 transfers between this department
and the other departments in the plant. As the Petitioner is seeking a
production and maintenance unit, and the employees in question, with
the exception of watchmen whom we treat separately, are typical main-
tenance employees, we shall include them in the unit.'
The parties are also in dispute as to the following classification of
employees whom the Petitioner would exclude and the Employer
would include.
Receiving clerks : There are two receiving clerks who work under the
.supervision of the Haan superintendent and the medium-price super-
intendent, respectively. At separate unloading docks, they check the
materials against a manifest, route them to the proper departments,
and assist in unloading. As the record does not indicate that these
,employees possess any of the indicia of supervisory authority, we find
no merit in the Petitioner's contention that they are supervisors. We
shall include them.lb
8 Cf. The Louisville Plant of the Minneapolis-Moline Company, 108 NLRB 1458.
Comfort Slipper Corporation, supra.
10 I btd.
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Standards clerks : There are eight standards clerks who work in a
separate office, located within the plant office, under the supervision of
the industrial engineer. Their duties consist of collecting and re-
placing employee timecards and the compiling and forwarding of
employee job coupons to the central payroll department. They fre-
quently go into the production area to check with employees regarding
discrepancies in coupons and to check the sequence of production on
new styles. Most of the standards clerks were formerly production
employees. We find the standards clerks are plant clericals and shall
include them in the unit."
Transportation coordinators: These consist of two employees
under the supervision of the Haan superintendent and two under the
medium-price superintendent who receive materials at the Employer's
processing terminal and transport them by truck to the Main Street
plant. Each driver also spends a day or more each week working in
one of the shoe assembly departments in the plant. While working in
the plant they are under the supervision of the department manager.
We find no merit in the Petitioner's contention that the transportation
coordinators should be excluded as truckdrivers from the unit. The
record would support a finding that the principal function of these
employees is that of truckdriver. However, it is established Board
practice to include truckdrivers in a production and maintenance unit
if no labor organization seeks to represent them separately.12 We shall
therefore include the transportation coordinators.
Watchmen : As noted above, there are four watchmen attached to the
general maintenance department. Their duties, under the-supervision
of the plant personnel manager, consist of firing the boiler, cleaning up
trash and make 35- to 45-minute rounds of the plant while punching
a watchman's clock. They work rotating shifts in which a watchman
is required to be on duty at all times. They carry plant keys and admit
personnel and employees. While they are not armed, deputized, or
uniformed, they watch for fires and intruders and are instructed to
notify the fire or police department of any such occurrences. We find,
contrary to the contention of the Employer, that these employees are
guards within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude them from the
unit.13
We accordingly 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 production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Main
Street plant, Nashville, Tennessee, including all employees of the ship-
ping department, returned goods department, damaged shoe depart-
n General Shoe Corporation, 117 NLRB 1704, 1708.
32 The Valley of Virginia Cooperative Milk Producers Association, 127 NLRB 785.
13 General Shoe Corporation , 114 NLRB 381, 384.
DISTRICT 76, RETAIL, WHOLESALE & DEPT. STORE UNION 1339
ment, heelpad department, box department, machine storage depart-
ment, general maintenance department, and all receiving clerks, repair
rack employees, stamp heelpads employees," standard clerks, and
transportation coordinators, but excluding all office clerical employees,
professional employees, technical employees, watchmen-guards, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.15
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
14 In its brief , the Petitioner agreed with the Employer to include the repair rack and
stamp heelpads employees
16 The Petitioner has not Indicated whether it desires to go to an election in the broader
unit found appropriate for which its showing of interest is adequate . If the Petitioner
wishes to withdraw , it may do so upon appropriate notification to the Regional Director.
District 76, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,
AFL-CIO and Irvin Morgan t/a Morgan Shoe Company. Case
No. 4-OP-11. January 13, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 3, 1960, Trial Examiner Samuel Ross issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding recommending dis-
missal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief.
The Board has considered the rulings of the Trial Examiner, made
at the hearing in connection with the jurisdictional issue, and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. These rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, in-
cluding the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the brief, and
hereby adopts the,findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that it would not
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
The Employer operates a small retail shoe store chain in the Metro-
politan Philadelphia area. In 1959 it operated three stores for the
entire year, one store from January to September which it then closed
permanently, and two stores for a few months in the last half of the
year. The Employer's gross sales from all sources were about $405,000
for the entire year 1959. The Trial Examiner recommended that the
complaint be dismissed because the Employer's sales did not reach the
Board's jurisdictional standard of $500,000 for retail enterprises.
The General Counsel contends that jurisdiction should be asserted
because the Employer's business would have been more than $500,000
129 NLRB No. 157.