Joske's Houston

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 18, 1977

233 N.L.R.B. 31 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

JOSKE'S HOUSTON
Joske's Houston and General Drivers, Warehouse-
men & Helpers Local Union No. 968, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America
Petitioner. Case 23-RC-4528
October 18, 1977
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer John P.
Cearley on June 1, 2, and 6, 1977, at Houston, Texas.
Following the hearing, and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, this case was
transferred to the Board by direction of the Regional
Director for Region 23. Briefs have been filed by the
Employer and the Petitioner.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer is a Texas corporation engaged in
the retail sale of goods at various stores. The facility
involved herein is its service center, located at 6666
Mykawa Road in Houston, Texas, through which
goods are purchased and distributed to its retail
outlets. Its two primary functions are the movement
of merchandise and inventory and control of that
merchandise.
In a previous proceeding,2 the Union, on February
13, 1976, petitioned for a warehouse unit, which
I The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Case 23-RC-4353. not published in bound volumes.
3 The following classifications were included in the unit: traffic office,
receiving dock, marking room (POFO), upholstery workroom, carpet
workroom, drapery workroom. appliance workroom, frame shop, delivery
233 NLRB No. 4
included all employee classifications supervised by
the Employer's general operations manager. The
Employer, contending that all classifications were
functionally integrated in its operations, argued that
the only appropriate unit would include all service
center employees, all of whom receive the same
benefits. The Regional Director found the requested
unit appropriate because of its separate supervision
and because of the lack of functional integration
among warehouse and other employees. 3 Request for
review of that Decision and Direction of Election
was denied by the Board on May 14, 1976. The
Union, however, failed to obtain a majority in that
election.
The parties' positions are unchanged. The Petition-
er requests a warehouse unit of all 140 employees
supervised by the general operations manager and
the Employer maintains that the only appropriate
unit would include all service center employees. 4 The
parties agreed that the Board should take notice of
the record in the previous case. The thrust of the
evidence presented in the later hearing related to the
duties and responsibilities of the disputed buyer
clericals, and to the Employer's allegations that there
have been "relevant changes" in its operation
warranting a finding that only a unit of all of the
approximately 400 service center employees is now
appropriate.
The Employer points to the following changes in its
operation since the previous proceeding: (1) A
second door added to the traffic office, (2) relocation
of the offices of the receiving clericals and buyer
clericals, (3) installation of a new photocopy ma-
chine, (4) distribution of a service center newspaper
"to relay news of interest to all employees," (5)
elimination of appliance repair, (6) increased parking
facilities, and (7) addition of a bulletin board outside
the personnel office. It also asserts that increased
contact among employees has resulted from in-
creased business volume.
We find these changes de minimis. In large part
they are physical changes affecting only the location
at which employees report for or perform certain
work. The same functions are still performed with the
same supervision. Further, the Employer's increased
volume since the previous proceeding has required
neither substantial organizational changes nor an
influx of additional employees. In any event, the
changes instituted by the Employer do not destroy
the identity of the unit found appropriate in the
previous proceeding, which we find appropriate.
warehousemen, housekeeping. furniture workroom. lawnmower. hike shop,
and supply room.
4 Sears, Roebuck and Co., 222 NLRB 476 (1976), which the Employer
claims is controlling, is inapposite. The merchandise control, delivery office,
and receiving clericals, whom the Board included in the warehouse unit,
were not separately supervised as in the instant case. Rather, they had
common supervision with the warehouse unit employees.
31
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Still at issue is the status of the buyer clericals. The
Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, would exclude
them from the bargaining unit. However, Petitioner
stated it would not object to the inclusion of this
classification if it is deemed appropriate. There are
two furniture-buyer clericals and two drapery-buyer
clericals. They "walk through" paperwork to expe-
dite everything that happens to the merchandise
from purchase until delivery to the customer. They
also handle the initial investigation of customer
complaints. The four buyer clericals are immediately
supervised by the buyers, who have authority to fire
them. The merchandise manager oversees the buyers
and reports to a general merchandise manager at one
of the Employer's other facilities. Because the buyer
clericals are separately supervised and are more
involved with control and inventory of the merchan-
dise, than with its movement, which involves the
warehouse employees, we find that they lack a
sufficient community of interest for inclusion in the
unit. Indeed, even the Employer in its brief demar-
cates two "primary functions" at its service center:
(1) movement of merchandise and (2) inventory and
control. Therefore, they are excluded from the unit
found appropriate.5
5 Member Murphy does not agree that the buyer-clericals are clearly to
be excluded from the unit and she would direct that they be voted subject to
challenge.
Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record in
this case, including all transcripts, exhibits, and briefs
in the previous proceeding between the parties
regarding the appropriateness of a warehouse unit,
we find that the following employees constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees employed by the Employer at its
Service Center facility at 6666 Mykawa Road,
Houston, Texas, who are supervised by its general
operations manager, including traffic officer,
receiving dock, marking room (POFO), uphol-
stery workroom, carpet workroom, drapery work-
room, frame shop, delivery warehousemen,
housekeeping, furniture workroom, lawnmower,
bike shop, and supply room, but excluding
truckdrivers and truckdrivers' helpers,6 SIM/MR,
unit control, credit, IO/AP, electronic data
processing, payroll, general ledger, statistical,
COD, sales audits, expense control, confidential
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
s A unit of drivers and drivers' helpers is currently represented by the
Petitioner pursuant to certification in Case 23-RC- 1867.
32