King Brooks, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 25, 1954108 N.L.R.B. 56 (N.L.R.B. 1954) Copy Citation 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD KING BROOKS, INC . and LOCAL 333S, MEN'S FURNISHINGS AND CLOTHING, MICHIGAN JOINT BOARD, AMALGAM- ATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No . 7-RC-2322. March 25, 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 Herbert C. Kane, 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 Employer is a Michigan corporation which operates a retail clothing store in Detroit, Michigan. During its fiscal year ending June 30, 1953, its out-of-State purchases and sales were in the approximate respective amounts of $466,000 and $3,000.1 On the basis of these purchases and sales in com- merce, we find, contrary to the Employer, that it is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.2 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Employer and the Intervenor moved that the instant petition for a unit of the Employer' s selling and nonselling employees be dismissed because the Michigan Labor Mediation Board had, prior to the filing of said petition, conducted an election among employees of the Employer. The Intervenor has been the contractual bargaining repre- sentative of the Employer's selling and nonselling employees; the most recent contract expired on September 16, 1953. On July 22 the Intervenor requested recognition as the represen- tative of the Employer's office and clerical employees and on July 23 it filed a petition with the Board. The Intervenor later withdrew the petition4 and thereafter filed a petition with the Michigan Labor Board, pursuant to which an election was held on September 22. The instant petitionwas filed on October 15, 1953, and was amended on October 19. On October 16 the 1 We find no merit to the Employer's contention that the Board should consider, for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, only its net sales and purchases; I. e., sales less returns and purchases less returns. 2 The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625; Stark's Boston Store, 107 NLRB 23. In agreeing to assert jurisdiction herein, Chairman Farmer is not to be deemed thereby as adopting the Board's past jurisdictional plan as a permanent policy. 3 Local 1050, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL, was permitted to intervene on the basis of a showing of interest covering the employees sought. 4 The record does not show why the Intervenor withdrew its petition and we draw no inference therefrom. 108 NLRB No 8. KING BROOKS, INC. 57 State Board wrote the Intervenor that "in the interest of comity" with this Board it would not tally the ballots until the Board acts upon the case. In support of its position that the petition should be dismissed because of the prior State Board election, the Employer relies on Oil Transport, Inc.-' However, that case is distinguishable on its facts. There, for example, the petitioner, the only union involved, sought an election from both the State Board and this Board, while in the instant case it was the Intervenor rather than the Petitioner which invoked the action of the State Board. Thus, the Petitioner herein has at no time acted inconsistently with its desire to have this Board determine the question concerning representation. In addition we note that the record does not indicate whether the State election was conducted in the office and clerical unit in which the Intervenor sought recognition from the Employer, or in a unit of selling and nonselling employees, which the parties agree in the instant case is an appropriate unit. Nor does the record indicate that the Petitioner herein sought or was offered an opportunity to appear on the State ballot. In these circumstances, and on the entire record in the case, we find no merit to the motion of the Employer and the Inter- venor to dismiss the petition.' The motion is accordingly denied. 4. We find, in substantial agreement with the parties, that the following unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees, excluding alteration department employees, confi- dential employees, managers, guards, and supervisors. 5. The parties stipulated that part-time employees should be excluded from the unit. However, we find that all part-time employees, regardless of the number of hours worked, are necessarily included in the unit, and that all regular part-time employees are also eligible to vote unless good cause is shown to the contrary.' Accordingly, we do not adopt the stipulation of the parties. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Members Beeson and Rodgers took no part inthe considera- tion of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 5106 NLRB 1321. 6Cf. Punch Press Repairs Corporation. 89 NLRB 615; Kaiser-Frazer Parts Corporation, 80 NLRB 1050; Waterways Engineering Corporation, 93 NLRB 794. 7Essex-Graham Company, 107 NLRB 1491. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation