M. S. Ginn & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 112 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Rela4ns.
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that;
WE wiLL bargain collectively upon request with Local 639,
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse
men and Helpers of America, AFL, and District Lodge No7, -
International Association of Machinists , AFL, (Local 144),
jointly, as the exclusive representative of employees in the br-
gaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, wa es,
hours, and other conditions of employment , and, if an under-
standing is reached , embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
The bargaining unit is : 11
All employees engaged in maintaining , repairing, and sere c-
ing motor vehicle equipment at our automobile and truck ren all
establishments at 2316 Georgia Avenue, N. W.; 125 Q Stre t,
'N. E,; and 1709 L Street, N. W., in the District of Columbia, and
at the Washington National Airport, including auto and truck
mechanics, body and fendermen , tiremen, washers , porters, serf-
icemen, and helpers, but excluding office employees , clerical em-
ployees , guards, watchmen , and working foremen and other s$-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
NATIONAL TRUCK RENTAL COMPANY,
Employer. I
Dated-- -------------- By------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereo ,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
M. S. Ginn & Company and Warehouse Employees Union, Loca
No. 730, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs
Warehousemen and lElelpers of America, AFL, Petitioner.,
Case No. 5-RC-1658. September 19,1955
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 William C. Humphrey, Sr.,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing.-are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
114 NLRB No. 25.
M. S. GINN & COMPANY 113
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer operates a warehouse and 2 stores in the District
of Columbia and 1 store in Alexandria, Virginia, in the retail sales of
stationery, office furniture, and other office supplies. The Petitioner
seeks to represent the warehouse employees. In 1954 the Employer
made total purchases of $580,000 and sales of $963,000. The District
of Columbia warehouse and stores received direct shipments of mer-
chandise from outside the District in the amount of $572,000 and sales
from these establishments to customers in the State of Maryland
amounted to $38,000. The Alexandria store received merchandise
valued at $42,000 from the District warehouse and merchandise valued
at'$10,000 directly from manufacturers. The Alexandria store's sales
to customers in Virginia totaled $86,000. The Employer also acts as
factory representative for manufacturers in securing orders from the
Federal Government, which orders are shipped directly from the
manufacturers to the Government. The value of such orders amounted
to approximately $16,000 in 1954.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein. Although the commerce data elicited
at the hearing shows that the Employer does not meet the ordinary
jurisdictional minimum for interstate retail chains, the warehouse
here involved is located in the District of Columbia where the Board
asserts jurisdiction on a plenary basis.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees 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. In accordance with a stipulation of the parties entered into at
the hearing, we find that the following employees of the Employer at
its Washington, District of Columbia, warehouse, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act :
All warehousemen, including order pickers, wrappers, furniture
finishers, truckdrivers, and helpers, but excluding all salesmen , office
clericals, guards, and all supervisors 1 as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' The Employer takes the position that Grover L. Owens, Jr, is not a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act The-Petitioner took no, position with respect to Owens '. status.
It is clear that part of Owens' , duties are nonsupervisory in nature . However, Owens is
"in charge of the warehouse " during the absence of the warehouse manager and the
record does not disclose whether or not during these periods Owens exercises-super-
visory authority and, if he does , the amount of time he is called upon to exercise such
authority . Accordingly , we make no determination as to Owens ' status, but we shall
permit him to vote in the election subject to challenge , his ballot not to be counted unless
it is determinative of the election result, and then only after a decision as to his status.