Greenfield's Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 1219 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of GREENFIELD's COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTmNd
WORKERS, OF AMERICA; LocAL 11, C. I. O.
Case No. 14-C-936.-Decided June 6, 1944
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 21, 1944, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port 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 a copy of the Intermediate Report an-
nexed hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the In=
termediate Report. Oral argument before the Board was waived by
the parties.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions,
and the entire record, and hereby adopts the findings,'conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Greenfield's Company, St.
Louis, Missouri, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and.desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively, ; in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
with Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Local 11, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all its employees in its busheling (alteration) department,
excluding supervisory employees who have the authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees, or effectively recommend such action :
(b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering
with, restraining; or `coercing its employees in the exercise of the right
to self-organization; to form, join, or assist labor, organizations, to,
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
56 N. L. R. B., No. 218. ' .
1 1219
1220 DECISIONS- OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as' guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act. -
2. - Take' the following affirmative, action,, Which, the -'Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act : -
(a) Upon request-, bargain collectively, in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
with Almalgamated Clothing Workers of America; Local 11, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all its employees in, its busheling (alteration) depart-
ment, excluding supervisory employees who have the authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action; '
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in the busheling (alter-
ation) department of its St. Louis Store, and maintain for a period of
at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices
to its employees stating : (1) that the respondent will not,engage in
the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs
1 (a) and (b) of this Order, and (2) that the respondent will take the
affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2, (a) of this Order;-
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this.Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Ryburn L Hackler, for the Board.
Mr. Robert T. Burch, for the respondent.
Mr. Henry Scherer, for the Union.
"- ST TEMENT OF " THE CASE -
Upon a charge duly filed on March 17, 1944, by Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, Local 11, C. I. O.,' herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director' for the
Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri), issiied its complaint dated March 28,
1944, against Greenfleld's Company, St. Louis, Missouri, herein called the re-
spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and S3ction 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,-49 Stat. 449, herein called the-Act.
Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon
the respondent and the Union. -
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged 4n substance: (1)
that on February 14, 1944, the Board in its Direction of Election in Case Number
14-R-827' found that all. employees in the busheling (alteration) department
of the respondent; excluding supervisory'eniployees, who have 'the-'authority to
.hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees or effectively recommend such 'action, constituted a unit appropriate
1 See In the Afatter of Greenfield's Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, Local 11, C. I. 0, Case No 14-R-827, 54 N. L. R. B 1315.
GREENFIELD'S COMPANY 1221
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act ; (2) that on March 13, 1944, the Board certified the Union as the
exclusive representative of the respondent's employees in said unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining as the result of an election won by the Union on
March 2, 1944, and that the Union is still such representative; (3) that on March
15, 1944, and at all times thereafter, the respondent refused and has continued
to refuse to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the unit described above; and -(4) that by such refusal the
-respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the' Act, and that such acts constitute
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Thereafter, the respondent filed an answer dated April 6, 1944, in which it
denied that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that
it is subject to the provisions of the Act or the jurisdiction of the Board.
On April 20, 1944, there was filed with the Chief Trial Examiner a written
stipulation of facts, hereinafter called the stipulation, signed by the respondent,
the Union and counsel for the Board. Said stipulation expressly waived the
holding of a hearing on the complaint, and agreed that the entire record in the
above-entitled matter should consist of the entire record and all exhibits in the
case entitled Greenfield's Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of -
America, Local 11, C. I. 0., Case No. 14-R-827, and certain documents attached
to the stipulation. The stipulation further agreed that the respondent does not
waive the filing of an Intermediate Report, or, in lieu thereof, Proposed Findings
of Fact, Proposed Conclusions of Law and Proposed Order, or the right to file
its Exceptions thereto or to any other part of the record or proceeding, or
the right to request oral argument before the Board, or the right to file briefs.
Thereafter, on April 20,, 1944, the Chief Trial Examiner designated the under-
signed as Trial Examiner herein.
Upon the entire record in the case the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Missouri corporation with its principal office and place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri, and is engaged in the retail sale and distribu-
tion of men's clothing and furnishings at a single store located in St. Louis.
During its, fiscal year ended January..31,-1944,; the respondent purchased .for its
.store in St. Louis merchandise for the aggregate price of $271,810.00, Of said
merchandise 91.6 percent was delivered to the respondent's store from points
outside Missouri. During the same period the respondent sold merchandise in
the said store for. aggregate sales price of $574,395. Of these sales, 8.4 percent
represented merchandise delivered to points outside Missouri or delivered to
carriers or the United States mails for transportation to points outside Missouri.
All such deliveries, except'those made by mails, were by a trucking company
under contract with, but not otherwise connected with, the respondent?
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED%
Amalgamated. Clothing Workers of America, Local 11, C. I O. is a labor organi-
zation admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
The above facts are taken from the Board ' s decision ( see footnote 1) and from the
stipulation. -
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
M. THE UNPAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1., The appropriate unit and representation by the Union of a majority therein.
On February 14, 1944, the Board issued a decision and direction of election s
finding that: "all employees. in the busheling (alteration) department of the-
Company, excluding supervisory employees who have the authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status,of employees
,or effectively recommend 'such action, constitute a .unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act."
The complaint, alleges and- the answer denies that said unit "will insure to
employees the full benefit of their right to self-organization and will otherwise
effectuate the policies of the Act," but the answer, admits that the Board,found
said unit to be appropriate. , The stipulation contains no, new evidence con-
'cerning the appropriateness of the unit. The Trial Examiner finds said unit
to be an appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. Fol-
lowing the direction of election, and pursuant thereto, an election was conducted
by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region on March 2, 1944 It was
won by the Union On March 13, 1944, the Board certified the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees 'in the appropriate unit' Although
'in its answer the' respondent denies that,' as'the 'complaint alleges,,""at :all ' times
since March 2, 1944, the Union has been the designated representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining . . ," no new matter appears in the stipulation
to challenge the status of the Union as determined by the Board. In accordance
'with the Board's certification above described, the Trial Examiner finds that
at all times since March 13, 1944, the Union has been, and is now, the exclusive,
representative of the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit above
described.
2. The refusal to bargain -
On March 7, 1944, the Union sent -the following letter to the respondent :
Mr. J. HARBICK, President
Greenfields Clothing Co. -
6th & Locust ' -
St. Louis, Mo.
DEAR Mr. HARRICK:
The results of the election, held by the National Labor Relations Board,
of the employees in your alteration department show that the employees
at your, store have chosen the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of; America
to represent them in collective bargaining.
Your employees have chosen a negotiating committee, who together with
the Representative of the Union, wish to present to you a contract as a basis
of negotiations -
Will you please advise.me as to when we can meet to present this agree-
ment for your 'consideration.-
Very truly yours,
RICHARh BriAzim, Manager
,HENRY,"ScH>ram."Bu.siness Agent.
3 See footnote No 1. above. ,
* The, Board 's certification finds, among other things, that all of the approximately 14
eligible voters cast valid votes for the Union.
GREENFIELD'S COMPANY 1223
On March 15 the,respondent sent•the following reply:
ST. Louis JOINT BOARD
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA
1722. Washington, Avenue,
St. 'Louis, Missouri
GENTLEMEN:
In reply to your letter of March 7, 1944, please be advised that we do not
recognize the results of the National Labor' Relations Board election, in
view of our position that the ' National Labor Relations Board has no
jurisdiction over our Alteration Department.
Very truly yours,
GREENFIELD'S COMPANY,
[s] J. HERRICK
3. Conclusions
It is clear that the above-quoted letter of the respondent constitutes a refusal
to bargain. It is likewise plainly established, in the answer, that the respond-
ent has continued to refuse to bargain with the Union, basing its refusal upon
the ground that "the 'Board has no jurisdiction over any matter or question
involved in this proceeding or in the proceeding entitled Case No. 14-R-827."
The identical issue' of the Board's jurisdiction was raised by the respondent
in Case No. 14-R-827. In its, decision and direction of election, above-referred
to, the Board said :
The Company contends that the substantial purchases from out-of-State
sources together with the other factors hereinabove referred to, do not
confer jurisdiction upon, the Board in the present proceeding. This con-
tention has, however, been raised in previous cases upon facts substantially
similar to those shown by the present record and decided adversely to the
position taken ' by the Company. We find that the Company is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
In view of the fact that stipulated facts in this case concerning the respond-
ent's business are substantially the same as those upon which the Board based
its above-quoted determination in Case No. 14-R-827, the. Trial Examiner'finds
no merit in the' respondent's position that the, Board is without jurisdiction
in this proceeding." The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that the respond-
ent, on March 15, 1944, and at all times thereafter has refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees
in the appropriate unit and has thereby interfered with, restrained and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF'THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent-described in Section I above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the,several States,' and tend to' lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the•Act. Since
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it has been found that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit, it will be recommended that the respondent, upon request, bargain
collectively with the Union.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1 Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Local 11, C. I. 0., is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All employees in the busheling (alteration) department of the respondent,
excluding- supervisory employees who have' the authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Local 11, C. I. 0., was on
March 13, 1944, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representa-
tive of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on March ' 15, 1944, and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Local 11, C. I. 0,
as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair,labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the,exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
'8 (1) of the Act.
6. The afoi esaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
,commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. -
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
-upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner recommends that the
respondent, Greenfield's Company, St. Louis, Missouri, and its officers, agents,
-successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, Local 11, C. I. O., , as the exclusive representative of all its ' em-
ployees in its busheling (alteration) department, excluding supervisory em-
ployees who have the authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or
otherwise effect changes in' the status of employees or effectively recommend
such action ;
(b) Engaging in any like or related acts,or conduct interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
to form,' join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in, concerted activities for the
purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed
in Section.7,of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act : i
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with 'Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, Local 11, C. I. O as the exclusive representative of all of its ein•
0
GREENFIELD'S COMPANY 1225
ployees in its busheling (alteration)' department, excluding- superyisory em-
ployees who have the authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in the busheling (alteration)
department of its St. Louis store, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating:
(1) that it will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that
it cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and, (b) of these recommendations, and
(2) that, the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph
2 (a) of these recommendations;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in'writing, within
ten (10) days from the receipt of this- Intermediate Report, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply-herewith. '
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional Direc-
tor in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid. -
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the-
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, effective November 26, 1943, any
party or counsel for the Board may,"within fifteen (15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writ.
ing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part
of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections)
as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in sup-
port thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or brief, th`e' pa`rty-br counsel for the Board filing the same' shall serve a
copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Re-
gional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should any party
desire permission to argue orally before the Board request therefor must be
made in witing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the order.
transferring the case to the Board.
C. W. WHITTEMORE,
Trial Examiner.
Dated April 21, 1944.