Grinnell Brothers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 20 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR-RELATIONS BOARD
Confidential employees
Secretary to office manager and assistant office manager
Secretary to vice president
Secretary to plant superintendent
Clerk-stenographer in personnel department
GRINNELL BROTHERS 1 and MICHIGAN JOINT BOARD, RETAIL;& DEPART-
MENT STORE EMPLOYEES, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO,2 PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1559. February 8,
1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas,
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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a Michigan. corporation with its principal
offices and places of business at Detroit, Michigan. It is engaged in
the retail sale of musical merchandise and household appliances. It
also owns and operates a piano factory located at Holly, Michigan.
The Employer has approximately 25 stores within the State of Michi-
gan, 1 store in Toledo, Ohio, and 1 in Windsor, Ontario. Only the
Flint, Michigan, store is involved in this proceeding. During a recent
12-month period, the Employer in all its operations purchased
$5,500,000 to $6,000,000 worth of merchandise. Of this amount, in
excess of $1,000,000 worth of merchandise was received from outside
the State of Michigan. During the same period, the Employer's sales
amounted to between $9,500,000 and $10,000,000. Of this amount,
the Employer shipped in excess of $100,000 worth of merchandise to
its stores located outside the State of Michigan.
The Employer contends that in deciding whether or not to assert
jurisdiction in this matter the Board should not consider any opera-
tions of the Employer except the Flint store. We do not agree with
this. contention. The policies of the Employer are formulated and
determined for all the stores by its board of directors and its president.
The manager of the Flint store has the responsibility of conducting
the store under the supervision of the president of the Employer and
I As amended at the hearing.
2 As amended at the hearing.
98 NLRB No. 13.
GRINNELL BROTHERS 21
to administer and carry out the policies of the Employer as to pur-
chasing, advertising, labor relations, and other matters as they are
determined for his store by the president and general manager. Gen-
eral warehousing and purchasing facilities are maintained at Detroit
for all the stores.
Upon the basis of the above facts and the record as a whole, we
find that, the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act and that it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.3
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees 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 parties are in general agreement as to the composition of the
unit. They differ as to the inclusion of Edna Reeves, the wife of the
manager of the store. In view of her close relationship to manage-
mnent, we will exclude her from the unit.4
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 employees at the Employer's Flint, Michigan, store, excluding
the manager and other supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Petitioner alleges that certain employees in the unit have been
on strike and have been illegally refused reinstatement by the Em-
ployer. It has filed charges relating to these employees in Case No. 7-
CA-676, and has also filed a waiver of any right to raise such charges
as matter for objection to the results of any election which may be con-
ducted in this case. The Petitioner contends that these employees are
eligible to vote; the Employer disputes their eligibility. We will allow
the employees concerned, and their replacements, if any, to vote chal-
lenged ballots. If their votes are determinative of the results of the
election, the resolution of their ballots will await the disposition of
the related complaint case.
Next of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Utah Construction, 95 NLRB 196 ; Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638 ; Dorn's House
of Miracles, Inc., 91 NLRB 632; Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Ltd., 91
NLRB 618; The Borden Company, Southern Division, 91 NLRB 628.
In support of its contention the Employer relies on N. L. R. B. v. Shawnee Milling Com-
pany, d /b/a Pauls Valley Milling Company, 184 F. 2d 57 (C. A. 10). We think this case
is distinguishable from the cited case on the basis of the functional Integration and the
degree of centralized control present here. But whatever the applicability of the cited
case , the Board, with clue respect for the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, is constrained to adhere to its original view until the Supreme Court of the United
States has had an opportunity to pass on the question.
4 Inyo Lumber Company, 92 NLRB 1267; General Finance Corporation, 88 NLRB 1031.
998666-vol. 98-52-3