Goldblatt Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 914 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of GOLDBLATT BROTHERS, INC. (CENTRAL DISPLAY),
EMPLOYER and WINDOW TRIMMERS, DECORATORS, AND DISPLAYMEN'S
UNION, LOCAL No. 41, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 13-RC-745. -Decided October 27, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Ivan C.
McLeod, 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 Houston and Members
Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board fords :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations 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 employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer operates a chain of 15 retail department stores,
with 11 stores in Chicago, Illinois, and single stores in Gary, Ham-
mond, and South Bend,-Indiana, and Joliet, Illinois. In accord with
the Employer's highly centralized operations, promotional advertising
and merchandising displays are coordinated on a chain-wide basis.
The major portion of the display work is done by the Central Display
Department while the remainder is handled by employees assigned to
display departments existing at some, but not all, of the individual
stores in the chain. The Central Display Department plans, coordi-
nates, and constructs all. displays used by the stores. The department
is divided into 3 sections known respectively as the operations section,
window display section, and the interior display section. Each of
these sections is headed by a supervisor who is responsible to the
86' N. L. It. B., No. 105.
914
GOLDBLATT BROTHERS, INC. 915
manager of the Central Display Department, who, in turn, is directly
under the general operating store manager. The planning of displays
is done by the supervisors and heads of Central Display in conjunction
with the retail sales departments. The displays selected and designed
are constructed by the operations section of Central Display which is
exclusively concerned with that work and either makes or purchases
the props necessary. Installation of the displays is then performed
by employees assigned to the other 2 sections of Central Display and
to the individual store display departments where the latter exist.
The display installation personnel assigned to the window and
interior display sections of Central Display and to display departments
of the individual stores, are divided into three job classifications:
specifically, window trimmers, interior trimmers, and table top men.
All three groups of employees perform work of a similar nature, but,
in each case, in a specialized form. The displays, which consist of
salable merchandise, decorative material, and props of various types,
must be fitted and adapted to the particular location where they are
installed. The installation requires the exercise of a certain amount
of artistic ability as well as the use of tools such as hammers, staple
guns, and glass cutters. Employees in the three job classifications use
similar skills and techniques ; and interchange of employees from one
group to another is encouraged by the Employer. A 2-year training
program is required before minimum skills in any of the classifications
are considered to have been acquired. In the past, and to a limited
extent at the present time, the Employer has conducted training pro-
grams for each of these jobs in cooperation with the Veterans'
Administration.
The Petitioner requests a unit basically consisting of all display
installation personnel-window trimmers, interior trimmers, and
table top set-up men-at the Empl.oyer's stores in Chicago. We have
previously recognized that employees of retail stores doing promo-
tional decoration and display work may have specialized skills, inter-
ests, and conditions of employment separate from those of other store
personnel.' In other instances, we have held that severance of display
groups from established bargaining units is not indicated where there
is no showing of particular skills, separate supervision, apprenticeship
programs or experience requirements, different working conditions, or
other factors.2 In the instant case, there is no bargaining contract
covering these groups. Moreover, the record shows that display instal-
lation employees have working conditions substantially divergent from
' See Matter of Denver Dry Goods Company, 74 N. L. R. B. 1167 and cases cited therein.
See Matter of E. W. Edwards & Sons, 95 N. L. R. B. 829; Matter of Frederick
Loeser & Company, Inc., 85 N. L . R. B. 281 . See also Matter of Dey Brothers & Co.,
85 N. L. R. B. 689.
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
those of other employees as well as separate supervision and a lack of
interchange with nondisplay workers. Most display installation men
are assigned to traveling crews and, while they are under the same
broad personnel policies as the entire chain, do not share any com-
munity of interest with those employees who are permanently sta-
tioned. In view of these facts and the qualifications as to training
and skills required by the Employer, we find that the window trimmers,
interior trimmers, and table top display men are a skilled and homo-
genous group with a community of interest and working conditions
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The scope and composition of the appropriate unit of display instal-
lation employees, however, remains an issue for determination. The
Petitioner requests that the unit be confined to employees of the
Chicago stores and that it exclude those display installation em-
ployees permanently assigned to the Employer's outlets at Gary,
Hammond, South Bend, and Joliet. The Employer asserts that only
a chain-wide unit would be appropriate. Separate display depart-
ments exist at the stores outside Chicago and the Ace, Belmont and
Central, and South States Street locations in the city. In the case
of the last named establishment, a separate display department in-
cluding all three job classifications of display installers works at that
location only. The Ace and Belmont and Central display depart-
ments consist of one and two employees respectively, who do window
trimming and interior trimming to supplement the work done by
the window display section and interior display of Central Display.3
The display department at Hammond consists of a supervisor, a
trimmer, and three helpers. The departments at Gary and South
Bend each have only a working supervisor assisted by a helper. At
Joliet, there is only one employee, a trimmer, in the display depart-
ment.4 The record shows that the working conditions and standards
of display installers at the Gary, Hammond, South Bend, and Joliet
stores are the same as those of the display installation personnel sta-
tioned in Chicago. All stores in the chain work under a single
coordinate system and under the over-all planning of Central Display.
Helpers in the outside Chicago stores are usually.hired locally, while
skilled personnel is transferred to these locations from Chicago. The
manager of the Central Display Department and the general operat-
ing store manager have supervisory authority over these employees
even though they are paid by the individual store. The objection
BAR table top displays in all stores of the chain except the State Street Store, are
Installed by the table top crew. This crew is a part of the interior display section of
Central Display.
4 In each case , sign makers administratively assigned to the display departments have
been omitted.
GOLDBLATT BROTHERS, INC. 917
of the Petitioner to the establishment of a chain-wide unit is based
on the ground that the distance involved makes effective representa-
tion from Chicago impracticable." However, in view of the cen-
tralized control and planning of work and the identity of skills and
working conditions of all display installation personnel, we believe
that there is no cogent reason for establishing a unit confined to the
employees of the Chicago stores ° Accordingly, we shall include dis-
play installation employees at the Employer's stores in Gary, Ham-
mond, South Bend, and Joliet in the unit hereinafter found
appropriate.
Operations section employees and sign makers: The Employer con-
tends that these employees who are engaged in display production
work should be included in the unit in view of their integration with
the display installation employees. Employed in the operations sec-
tion are an artist, a bookkeeper, a secretary-stenographer, three artist-
lettering men, five screen process men, a cut awl operator, a spray
booth operator-porter, and three shipping employees. This section,
as noted above, is under separate direct supervision and is perma-
nently assigned to one location where the personnel is exclusively
engaged in the production and construction of displays. The sign
makers are also considered a part of Central Display for operational
purposes, and each store in the chain has one or more sign makers who
work in conj unction with the display production personnel. The sign
makers, some of whom have art experience, perform the usual func-
tions of that classification and their work is used both in displays and
with store merchandise at the point of sale. Where there is a display
department at the individual store, they are under the supervision of
that department. Contrary to the contention of the Employer, we
do not believe that the operations section personnel and the sign
makers are so integrated with the display installation employees as
to make necessary their inclusion in a bargaining unit of the latter.
While there is some interchange between the operations section and
the interior display sections of Central Display, and skills of em-
ployees in the three sections are apparently similar in some instances,
there was no showing that this interchange is substantial. The rec-
ord shows that the operations section and the sign makers are engaged
in production work and utilize skills, abilities, and experience sepa-
rate and distinct from those of the display installation employees.
6 Testimony adduced at the hearing showed that the distance between individual stores
in Chicago is, in some cases, greater than that between Chicago and the stores outside that
city. At the conclusion of the hearing , the Petitioner agreed to accept a chain -wide unit
if the latter was found appropriate by the Board.
6 See Matter of Beatrice Foods Company , 84 N. L. R. B. 512 ; Matter of Allen B. Dumont
Laboratories, Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 172; Matter of Westbrook Enterprises, Inc., 79 N. L. R. B.
1032,
867351-50-vol. 86-59
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Furthermore, the permanent location of these employees as well as
the melange of skills in the operations section do not support a finding
of any community of interest between them and the display installers.
Accordingly, as we believe that the skills, interests, and working
conditions of the employees in the operations section and of the sign
makers are substantially divergent from those of the display installa-
tion employees, we shall exclude them from the unit.
Working supervisors: The Petitioner requests that working super-
visors in display departments separate from Central Display be ex-
cluded from the unit. With the exception of the display departments
at the Hammond and South State Street Stores,7 each of these working
supervisors has but one employee, a helper, under his direction. They
spend their entire time working as trimmers and instruct and direct
their helpers in the course of that work. While these working super-
visors can make recommendations as to the promotion or discharge of
their assistants and such recommendations will receive consideration,
final authority to discharge and promote is vested in the Central Dis-
play Department manager and the general operating store manager.
The Employer contends that these employees are not supervisors but
that the relationship between the working supervisor and his helper
corresponds to that of window trimmers and helpers in the window dis-
play section of Central Display. Therefore the Employer takes the
position that if the working supervisors are excluded from the unit,
either the window trimmers or their helpers must also be excluded.
There are two crews in the window display section of Central Display ;
each crew consisting of four trimmers and four helpers, and directed
by a traveling supervisor." The trimmers make reports to the travel-
ing supervisors as to the progress of their individual helpers and an
adverse report by a trimmer could affect the promotion or discharge of
a helper. However, in the case of both the working supervisors and
the window trimmers, the relationship between the alleged supervisor
and subordinate appears to consist only of routine direction, and the
authority vested in the working supervisor or the trimmer is compara-
ble to that of a craftsman over his helper. In accord with our usual
° The State Street display department is headed by a manager , who the parties agree, and
we so find , is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
8In addition to the two traveling supervisors in the window display section , two other
employees are assigned to identical positions over the crews of interior trimmers in the
interior display section . The table top crew does not have a traveling supervisor. The
traveling supervisor spends approximately 40 percent of his time in direction , coordination,
and supervision of his crews . While the parties did not indicate clearly their respective
positions as to the inclusion of these traveling supervisors , we believe that they spend, an
appreciable amount of time in the responsible direction of subordinates, exercise independent
judgment and can make effective recommendations as to change in the status of men
assigned to their crews . Accordingly, we find they are supervisors within the meaning of
the Act, and we shall exclude the traveling supervisors from the unit.
GOLDBLATT BROTHERS, INC. 919
policy in such instances, we find that neither the working supervisors
of the individual store display department or the window trimmers in
Central Display are supervisors within the meaning and intent of the
Act.9 Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit.
We find that all display installation employees employed in the
Employer's retail stores in Chicago and Joliet, Illinois, and Hammond,
South Bend, and Gary, Indiana, including window trimmers, interior
display trimmers, table top display men and working supervisors, but
excluding all sign makers, the operations section of Central Display,
the traveling supervisors of the window display and interior display
sections of Central Display, the State Street display department man-
ager, and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and
subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed dur-
ing the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direc-
tion of Election, including employees who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by
Window Trimmers, Decorators, and Displaymen's Union Local No.
41, AFL.
6 See Matter of Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 83 N. L . R. B. 187 ; Matter of
General Beverages Company, 85 N. L. R. B. 696 ( Supplemental Decision ), wherein we
held that drivers who exercise limited powers comparable to the authority delegated to the
employees at issue herein, are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act.