Goldblatt Bros., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 16, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1340 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the
Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a cer-
tification of representatives to the IAM for such unit, which the
Board, under these circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the pair;
poses of collective bargaining. And in that event, should a majority
of the employees, in the production, voting, group select the Distillery,
Workers or Local 6 as their representative,' the Regional Director is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such labor
organization for a unit of production employees, which the Board, in
these circumstances, finds, to be appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority in the mainte-,
nance voting group do not select the IAM, the ballots of the employees
in the maintenance voting group will be pooled with those of the
employees in the production group." If the Distillery Workers or
Local 6 achieves a majority of the votes in the pooled group, the
Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representa-
tives to such labor organization for a unit of production and mainte-
fiance employees, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to
be an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
9 The IAM does not wish to be on the ballot of the production voting group.
10 If the ballots are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner votes for the,
IAM shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the Distillery Workers or
Local 6, all other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for the Distillery
Workers or Local 6, or for no union.
Goldblatt Bros., Inc. and Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5651. January 16,
1958 `
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 Frances P. Dom,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby aflirmed.l
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motions to dismiss on the
grounds that ( 1) the adequacy of the Petitioner's showing had not been established as
the Board had not "scrutinized the gemmzLeness of the signatures with sufficient care",
and (2 ) thee Petitioner had not made a demand upon the Employer for recognition As
to (1), the sufficiency of a petitioner 's showing of interest is an administrative matter not
subject to litigation We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner's showing of
interest is adequate 0 D Jennnngs & Company, 68 ELRB 516 As to (2), the filing of
the petition constitutes a sufficient demand, and the Employer declined, at the hearing, to
recognize the Petitioner The motions to dismiss are therefore hereby denied Goldblatt
Bros , Inc, 118 NLRB 643
119 NLRB No 162
GOLDBLATT BROS., INC. 1341
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
Rodgers and Bean].
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
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. (A) The scope of the unit: The Petitioner seeks to represent
a unit of selling and nonselling employees at the Employer's store
at 9100 South Commercial Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.' The Employer,
in a very recent case in which the Board found appropriate a' unit
at its Hammond, Indiana, store,' contended that "the only appro-
priate unit is one embracing the employees in its 17 stores in the
Chicago area, in which it would include the stores in Chicago, Joliet,
Park Forest, Hillside, and Elmwood Park, Illinois, as. well as the
store in Hammond and one in Gary, Indiana, but would, exclude the
stores in Rockford, Illinois, and Racine, Wisconsin," 5 because, of
their geographical distances. Without surrendering this contention,
the Employer now asserts "that the elements which the Board con=
sidered vital in holding that the employees of the Hammond store
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit do not exist in this case,"
and that the very reasoning of the Board in that case compels the
conclusion here "that the employees in the stores of the company in
the Cook County area should constitute a single collective bargaining
unit."
The petition for the Hammond store unit was filed.by a local of the
present Petitioner. In the course of the hearing in that case, an
exhaustive description of the Employer's operation of its stores was
placed in the record. This record has been incorporated Herein and,
by agreement of the parties, the testimony as I to the operation of the
Hammond store is applicable to the Commercial Avenue store except
to the extent that it has been supplemented or modified at the present
hearing.
2 The parties stipulated to the incorporation , as part of the present record, of the en-
tire record in Goldblatt Bros ., Inc. (13-RC-5286 ), on which the decision at 118 NLRB 643
is based.
U The Commercial Avenue-store , acquired in 1928, is the third oldest store in the chain
of Goldblatt stores.
4 Goldblatt Bros ., Inc., supra, issued July 11, 1957.
5It appears , from the entire record, that there is 1 Goldblatt store in each of these
cities other than Chicago , and 11 stores in Chicago.
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As stated in the July 1957 Decision, while the record establishes that
the Employer's "operations are largely centralized and integrated,"
it also establishes that considerable autonomy and discretion are exer-
cised by the management of each store. As that Decision points out,
there are price variations at each store due to local conditions, and a
store manager may place items on sale to clear out perishable goods,
odds and ends, or out-of-season merchandise, may reduce prices to
meet local competition, and may participate in community sales and
special events. The store management determines some of its display
policies, including the number and placement of signs, and makes
some of its own signs. Hours of work vary from store to store in
accord with community practice, the store management determining
the work schedules of its employees. Store managers' recommenda-
tions as to items to be bought and stocked for their stores are given
considerable weight by the central office. Although most merchan-
dise is shipped to company warehouses for distribution, a great deal
of it is shipped directly to the stores. Each store has its own credit
and layaway departments, attempts to collect delinquent accounts,
makes various kinds of adjustments for customers, and has its own
watchmen and janitors, including a supervisory head janitor.
Furthermore, each store interviews and hires most of its own
employees. The store manager, the operating superintendent, and
the personnel supervisor at each store have authority to hire, transfer,
and discharge personnel, limited only by the requirement that central
office clearance be obtained before an employee with 5 years of service
is discharged. In addition, store management determines, within its
budget, how many regular employees to maintain, how many extra
employees to hire for special events, what wage rates to pay employees
within established scales, which employees should. _ receive merit
increases, and whether employees should be paid on a commission or
other basis. Finally, each store handles for its staff such personnel
matters as vacation schedules and leaves of: absence, and maintains its
own personnel records.
Some differences exist, as the Employer points out, as to the Ham-
mond store on the one hand and the Commercial Avenue store on the
other. One such difference is the fact that the Hammond store is
located in Indiana, while the Employer's principal store and office,
as well as the Commercial Avenue store, are located in Chicago. The
Employer, however, apparently does not administer its stores on a
State, county, or other clearly defined geographical basis.6
6 The Employer's warehouses in Chicago service all its stores in that city , but the
Hammond base does much of the warehousing for the Hammond and Gary stores, while
the Rockford and Racine stores maintain their own warehouses . A traveling crew as-
signed to the central display department of the main store handles window trimming and
interior displays at only four of the stores in Chicago ; some of the other stores have their
own window trimming crews. Outside servicemen , who service major appliances , work out
GOLDBLATT BROS., INC. 1343
Another difference is that the Hammond store does more separate
advertising than the Commercial Avenue store. The fact is, however,
that much of the advertising for all but the Rockford and Racine
stores is on a joint basis. Moreover, like the Hammond store, the
Commercial Avenue store at times conducts separate sales, and does
some separate advertising in a neighborhood newspaper circulated
in its immediate area.
The Employer points to the fact that the Petitioner, admittedly,
is carrying on organizational activities among employees at other
stores of the Employer. The extent of a union's organizational activi-
ties, however, can have no controlling effect upon the unit we find
appropriate? Moreover, no labor organization is here seeking to
represent a unit of broader scope *than a single store.
The Employer also points to the fact that "At least twice a year"
about 30 employees from the Commercial Avenue store are assigned to
the principal store on State Street to assist in major sales . During this
period, they are paid at and charged to the State Street store. The
record does not indicate how long the sales run. In any event, this
factor does not establish such integration as to outweigh the many
elements of store autonomy. Moreover, no one is arguing for a unit
of the State Street and Commercial Avenue stores.
There is no history of collective bargaining covering the employees
here involved. As set forth in the 1957 Decision, the bargaining
history of the Employer's employees has been too heterogeneous to
establish any pattern as the Employer "has entered into collective-
bargaining agreements with various unions on the basis of units cover-
ing a State, city, county, or other geographical area, as well as a
particular store or combination of stores." The units found appro-
priate in the Employer's stores have, therefore, depended upon the
facts in each case .8
We have. duly considered all the Employer's arguments in support
of a multistore unit, some of which were presented and considered in
the Hammond proceeding, and, on the basis of factors relied upon in
finding the Hammond store a separate unit, particularly the autonomy
of the store management, the extent of the direct supervision of
employees and of the power to hire and discharge exercised by the
store management, the fact that no union is here seeking representation
of a more extensive unit, and the lack of any prevailing pattern of
bargaining on a broader basis, we find appropriate a separate storewide
unit of employees of the Commercial Avenue store.'
(B) Composition of the unit: The petition describes a unit of all
regular and regular part-time selling and nonselling employees at the
of a Chicago warehouse and take care of all the stores except those at Hammond, Gary,
Joliet, Rockford, and Racine.
7 Section 9 (c) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act.
8 See Goldblatt Bros., Inc., 118 NLRB 643, footnote 8.
9 Goldblatt Bros., Inc., supra; Walgreen Company, 114 NLRB 1168.
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Commercial Avenue store, excluding employees represented by other
AFL-CIO unions, seasonal and temporary employees, buyers, pro-
fessional employees, guards, department managers, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
The Commercial Avenue store employs. approximately 162 regular
full-time selling and nonselling employees, of whom about 17 are cov-
ered by contracts with other unions; 33 employees working less than
40 and more than 26 hours a week; 24 regular extra employees; and a
number of casual and seasonal employees.
At the hearing, the parties were in agreement as to a unit of selling
and nonselling employees.10 They were in agreement also that, in
addition to the store manager, the store merchandising superintendent,
and the store operating superintendent, the other executive personnel
of the store is comprised of the personnel manager, department man-
agers, and other nonselling 'supervisors. The, parties stipulated
further to the same .exclusions as were set forth with regard to- the
Hammond store unit, with the additional exclusion of window trim-
mers,who were included in the Hammond store. unit: As no' window
trimmers are'employed at the Commercial Avenue store,:however, we
shall make no unit disposition of that category. in the present case.
No agreement was reached by the parties. as. to,- the. inclusion 'of
assistants: to. the personnel supervisor and to the paymaster, and'of
regular extra employees who work less than 26-hours a week. .In
the Hammond store unit, we included the assistants: to .the personnel
supervisor and to the paymaster, and all regular extra employees.
No reason has been-advanced to warrant a different result, in this case
as to any of these employees. For the reasons stated,in that case-we
include them.
Accordingly, 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 selling-and. non-
selling employees at 9100 South Commercial Avenue,: Chicago, Illi-
nois, including all regular part-time and regular extra: employees; and
the assistants to the personnel supervisor and, to the paymaster, but
excluding all. seasonal and casual employees, employees of . leased
departments, employees covered by other union agreements," profes-
signal employees, guards and house detectives, the secretary to the
store manager, the paymaster, department managers, the personnel
manager, and all other supervisors as defined-in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
10 The Employer, in entering into these unit stipulations, did not waive its basic unit
position nor its motions to dismiss, discussed above.
n The meatcutters and butcher workmen employed in the Employer 's Chicago stores are
covered by 2 separate agreements negotiated jointly and simultaneously with 2 different
locals of the same union. Such employees, if any, employed at the Commercial Avenue
store will therefore be excluded.