J. J. Moreau & Son, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 999 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

J. J. MOREAU & SON, INC. 999
clerical , and professional employees , guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act .2
5. The Petitioners herein filed a joint petition. The Em-
ployer contends that it is inappropriate for the Board to enter-
tain a petition jointly filed by two unions for the reason that
they do not together constitute a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act. It also contends that "no joint representa-
tion is contemplated" by the Petitioners if they win the
election. We find these objections to be without merit 3 Board
precedent has fully established the propriety of two or more
labor organizations acting jointly as bargaining representative
for a single group of employees.4 We perceive no cogent
reason for departing from past precedent in such cases. As
for the Employer's assertion regarding the bargaining intentions
of the Petitioners, the record as a whole does not show that,
if selected, the Petitioners will not bargain on a joint basis
for the unit herein found appropriate. In the event the Peti-
tioners, whose names will appear jointly' on the ballot, are
successful in the election hereinafter directed, they will be
certified jointly as the bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the entire appropriate unit. And the Employer may
then insist that they do in fact bargain jointly for such em-
ployees as a single unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication]
2 The parties stipulated to the appropriateness of this unit.
9Nor do we find merit in the Employer's further objections to this petition based on the
fact that authorization cards signed on behalf of Furniture and Finishers Local Union No.
980, AFL, do not also authorize United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL, Local 795. to act for the employees involved or that carpenters employed by the Em-
ployer are not eligible for membership in Furniture and Finishers Local Union No. 980,
AFL. In the former connection, the Employer is in substance challenging the showing of
interest herein, which is a matter for administrative determination, not litigable by the
parties. Sonoco Products Company, 107 NLRB 82; Harry Brown Motor Company, 86
NLRB 652. In the latter connection, the Board has uniformly held that the willingness of a
petitioner to represent employees, rather than the eligibility of employees to membership
in the petitioner, is controlling under the Act. Buzza-Cardozo Company, 99 NLRB 40.
4Sonoco Products Company, supra
J. J. MOREAU & SON, INC. and CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS &
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION 633, and AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA,
LOCAL UNION 314, AFL, Petitioners . Case No . 1-RC-3448.
January 28, 1954
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 George A.
Sweeney, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
107 NLRB No. 207.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce withinthe meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The Petitioners seek a single unit comprised of all the
employees of the Employer, both selling and nonselling, but
excluding guards and supervisors. The Employer argues that its
selling and nonselling employees should not be combined in the
same unit. Accordingly, it contends that the warehousemen,
drivers and helpers, and service shop employees should be ex-
cluded from the requested unit and included in a separate unit.
The Employer would exclude from any unit found appropriate its
office clerical employees and outside salesmen. There is no
previous bargaining history affecting any of the employees
involved in this proceeding. The record does not disclose that
any other union is seeking to represent the employees whom the
Employer would exclude.
The Employer operates general hardware department stores
at two locations in Manchester, New Hampshire. At these stores,
which are about a block apart, the Employer is engaged in the
wholesale and retail sale of lumber, hardware, sporting goods,
and building supplies. In connection with the operation of its
stores, the Employer maintains a warehouse and service shop,
both of which are located across the street from the main store
on Elm Street, and a lumber and building supply yard, which is
located to the rear of the store at Brice and Baldwin Streets.
The entire operation is under the general supervision of -the
Employer's president, who is the "overall boss,"but there is a
supervisor in immediate charge of the main store and the nearby
warehouse and service shop and another supervisor in charge of
the Brice and Baldwin Streets store and the adjacent supply
yard. There are approximately 149 selling and nonselling
employees employed at these locations, all of whom are carried
on the same payroll, which is prepared at the Brice and Baldwin
Streets store. The record does not show that there is any differ-
ence in the working conditions or interests of the selling and
nonselling employees.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, and in
accordance with established Board practice,2 we find a single
i American Fruit Growers , Inc., 101 NLRB 740.
2 C. C. Anderson Stores Company, 100 NLRB 986; S. H. Kress & Co. , 92 NLRB 15; Maas
Brothers , Inc., 88 NLRB 129; Sears , Roebuck & Co., 76 NLRB 167.
J. J. MOREAU & SON, INC. 1001
unit of the Employer's selling and nonselling employees to be
appropriate.3
Office clerical employees: The Employer would exclude
these employees because they ''work on the financial books and
records of the corporation," in areas which are separated from
those where the other employees work. In view of all the above,
however, these facts do not afford sufficient reason for excluding
the office clerical employees from a unit of the Employer's
selling and nonselling employees 4 We shall therefore include
them.
Outside salesmen: These four employees "sell merchandise
and also represent the store in contacts withthe public outside
the store." According to the Employer's witness at the hearing,
they work at one of the Employer's stores "possibly a few hours
a week, under 20 anyway." The outside salesmenare under the
same supervision and, as indicated above, are carried on the
same payroll as the other employees in the unit. Contrary to the
Employer's contention, we find that the outside salesmen have a
sufficient community of interest with other employees in the
unit to warrant including them. We shall therefore include them.
We find that all regular full-time and regular part-time
employees of the Employer at its Manchester, NewHampshire,
operation, including retail sales clerks, warehousemen, drivers
and helpers, service shop employees, office clerical employees,
office cashiers, and outside salesmen, but excluding guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Petitioners desire to go on the ballot as a single,
joint representative. The Employer opposes this on the ground
that "no joint bargaining is intended by these two Unions."
The record as a whole, however, does not show that, if selected,
the Petitioners will not bargain on a joint basis for the unit
herein found appropriate. Board precedent has fully established
the propriety of two or more labor organizations acting jointly
as bargaining representative for a single group of em-
ployees.5 We see no reason to depart from such precedent in the
present instance, and accordingly find that the Petitioners may
appear jointly on the ballot in the election directed hereinafter.
If they should win, they will be certified jointly as the bargaining
representative of the employees in the entire appropriate unit.
31t is noteworthy that while the Employer challenges the appropriateness of the requested
unit on the ground that selling and nonselling employees work at different locations, it
argues for th establishment of separate units, each of which would embrace employees
who work at different locations.
4See the cases cited in footnote 2, supra Although not expressly requested, it appears
that the Employer would also exclude from the unit its employees classified as office cashiers.
Under all the circumstances, however, we perceive no valid reason for the exclusion of these
employees, who cash checks, collect accounts receivable, and record receipts and payments.
We shall include them.
5 Sonoco Products Company, 107 NLRB 82.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer may then insist that the Petitioners do in fact
bargain jointly for such employees as a single unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
DUVAL SULPHUR AND POTASH COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS,
for itself, and onbehalf of its CARLSBAD POTASH WORKERS,
LOCAL 415, Petitioner
DUVAL SULPHUR AND POTASH COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL 953,
AFL, Petitioner . Cases Nos . 33-RC-463 and 33-RC-465.
January 28, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Byron E. Guse , hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employe + is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
employees of the employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. Pursuant to Board certification ,2 Mine-Mill Workers
(Petitioner in Case No . 33-RC-463) and the Company executed
a collective - bargaining agreement , effective May 1, 1953,
covering a unit of general maintenance employees . Mine-Mill
Workers and Operating Engineers ( Petitioner in Case No.
33-RC-465) each now seeks to represent the Employer's
unrepresented production and operating employees . Mine-Mill
Workers also requests that, in the event it wins the election,
it be certified in a single unit including the maintenance
workers it now represents . With the exception of hoistmen,
the Petitioners agree on the general grouping of the Employer's
production and operating employees . The Employer contends
' Contrary to the Operating Engineers ' contention , we have administratively determined
that Mine -Mill Workers have sufficient interest in the Employer's production and operating
employees to support Mine-Mill Workers ' petition and to warrant an election with the latter
union on the ballot.
2 100 NLRB 1528.
107 NLRB No. 200.