Leopold Adler Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1949

82 N.L.R.B. 482 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of LEOPOLD ADLER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and RETAIL
CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION 1604, A. F. L.,
PETITIONER
Case No. 10-RC-447.-Decided March 09,1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the
petition on the ground that the Employer is not engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act. For reasons hereinafter stated, the
motion is denied.
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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.'
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent em-
ployees 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 following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act : all salespeople and office employees, including department
* Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray.
1 Leopold Adler Company, a Georgia corporation, operates a department store in Savan-
nah, Georgia . The Employer annually purchases merchandise valued in excess of $1,000,-
000, of which more than 90 percent is purchased outside the State of Georgia. The Em-
ployer annually sells merchandise valued in excess of $1,350,000, of which approximately
1 percent is sold outside the State . We find, contrary to the Employer' s contention, that
it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Matter of Louis Pizitz Dry
Goods Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 1442; Matter of Parks-Belk Dry Goods Company, 77
N. L. R. B. 429.
82 N. L. R. B., No. 55.
482
LEOPOLD ADLER COMPANY 483
heads,2 cashiers and bushelmen; but excluding all employees in the
leased departments, all warehouse employees, drivers, porters, maids,
and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 45
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, and subject
to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by
Retail Clerks International Association, Local Union 1604, A. F. L.
'The Petitioner contends that 11 persons classified as department heads should be
excluded from the unit as supervisors . The department heads have no authority to hire,
discharge , promote, discipline or effectively recommend such action , although they in-
struct the employees as to the manner in which customers should be handled, are respon-
sible for the arrangement of stock, and fix the lunch hours for their departments The
record reveals that they are actively engaged in making sales and, in fact , are required
to show a larger sales margin than the other salespeople . We find, contrary to the Peti-
tioner's contention , that the department heads are not supervisors within the meaning
of the Act . Matter of Pro,,alence Public Market Co .. 79 N. L. R. B. 206.