Levitz Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 205 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

LEVITZ SERVICE COMPQNYI, :205
Respondent ; nevertheless , the quality of the evidence as a whole, despite my
unfavorable impression of Gobbo, fails to ripen this possibility into the finding that
in fact Local 498 lacked such a majority. It all boils down to the legal conclusion
that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proving by a preponder-
ance of the substantial evidence as a whole that the Respondent violated the Act
as alleged in the complaint . It will therefore be recommended that the complaint
be dismissed in its entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 300 and Local 498 are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act have
not been sustained.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Levitz Service Company 1 and International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, Local 1448, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
4-RC-3510. July -8,1958
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Seymour X. Alsher,
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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
Upon the entire record 2 in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is one of several related family enterprises en-
gaged in retail store operations and frozen food processing in Lebanon,
Pennsylvania.
Levitz Furniture Company, Partners, is a partnership composed of
members of the Levitz family. The latter are directors of, own, and
control all the stock of, and actively manage six subsidiary corpora-
tions, i. e., Levitz Furniture Company, herein called Furniture Com-
pany, which operates the retail store and warehouse; Levitz Credit
Corporation, herein called Credit, which arranges financing for prod-
1 Herein called Service.
2 Subsequent to the close of the hearing , the parties entered into a stipulation setting
forth certain additional facts concerning the business of the Employer and the related
enterprises discussed hereinafter . The stipulation is hereby accepted and made part of
the record in this case.
121 NLRB No. 37.
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ucts sold in the retail stores; Service, the corporation here involved,
which mainly installs, repairs, and services appliances sold by Furni-
ture Company; Modern Maid Packers, Inc., herein called Modern
Maid, which processes, sells, and delivers frozen food; 8 and William
Lawrence-Sales Company, herein called Lawrence, which distributes
appliances and sells frozen food freezers to Modern Maid.
' In terms of physical location 'the merchandising, credit, and ad-
ministrative departments of all corporations and the partnership are
located at the retail store operated by the Furniture Company. The
warehousing operations of Furniture Company as well as a retail out-
let and the service operation are located in,the warehouse approxi-
mately 1 mile from the retail store. The operations of Modern Maid
are located in a building adjacent to the warehouse 4
The operations of all corporations are directed by a general man-
ager, Sidney Levitz, who is assisted by a manager of each corporation.
Although employees are hired and discharged by the manager of each
corporation, there is a common bookkeeping, personnel, and payroll
section. at the retail store operated by Furniture Company which
serves the other corporations. Furniture Company conducts the
advertising for all Levitz enterprises and employee benefits are the
same for all employees regardless of the corporation to which they
are, assigned.
From the foregoing, we find'that Service and .the other Levitz
corporations are operated as a single integrated enterprise, under
common ownership and management, and that they constitute a single
employer within the meaning of the Act.' During-a recent fiscal year,
in conducting their retail operations, the Levitz corporations made
purchases in excess of $1,450,000; of this amount, in excess of $500,000
represented direct inflow and in excess of $500,000-represented indirect
inflow from outside, the State of Pennsylvania. During the same
period, sales amounted to approximately $2,000,000. In conducting
its nonretail operations during this same period; -the Levitz corpora-
tions which were predecessors to Modern Maid -purchased products
valued in-excess of $270,000, and made sales in excess of $340,000.
During 1958, the first complete year of Modern'Maid's operation, it is
anticipated that it will ship products outside the State of Pennsyl-
vania valued in -excess of $50,000. On the basis of the, foregoing, we
find that the nonretail -operations of the Levitz corporations ,are not
de minimis. ' As the operations of the Levitz corporations meet the
Board's jurisdictional standards for nonretail enterprises, we further
s Modern Maid, organized in 1957, is the successor to a. number of family-owned
frozen food processing and distributing corporations.
4 The record does not show the location of Lawrence.
5 Frank S. Owens Co., et al ., 118 NLRB 1619.
LEVITZ SERVICE COMPANY 207
find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
in this proceeding.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer. ,
3. No 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 for the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent employees of Service, who are
engaged in installation and service of television, radio, home ap-
pliance, refrigeration, and associated apparatus at Service's Lebanon,
Pennsylvania, warehouse. As found above, the various Levitz enter-
prises, including Service, constitute a single employer within the
meaning of the Act. In addition, as the Board has frequently held,
a community of interest exists among all employees in department
stores and an overall unit of selling and ilonselling employees is there-
fore the basically appropriate unit? „Moreover the work of the em-
ployees of Service is closely integrated with'the work of other Levitz
employees. Thus the employees of Service perform the principal
duty of installation and maintenance of products sold by Furniture.
Company ; they also deliver products sold by Furniture Company and
repossessitems financed by Credit. Each day Service employees work
in Furniture Company's warehouse unloading and cleaning appliance==
to be sold at the retail store. On occasion, they also work in the retail'
store where they repair furniture, decorate windows, and perform
maintenance duties. In addition, assignments of Service employees
are made to the -delivery department of Furniture Company and'
during slack periods, Service employees are transferred to Furniture
Company. During these periods Service employees take orders from
Furniture Company or Credit supervisors of the department or cor-
poration to which assigned. Likewise, there is transfer of employees
from the other Levitz corporations into Service, and, as a matter of
overall policy, there is promotional transfer-of employees among all
the corporations.
From the foregoing it is clear that Service employees, who con-
stitute but a segment' of the basically appropriate unit, have a close
community of interest with other employees at the retail store and
warehouse. We therefore find that a separate unit, limited to em-
ployees of Service, is inappropriate, and we shall, accordingly, dismiss
the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
The T H. Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732.
a Cf. A. Harris & Co., 116 NLRB 1628, which also sets forth criteria, not present
here, under which a separate warehouse unit will be found appropriate.