Marshall Field & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of MARSHALL FIELD & COMPANY, EMPLOYER and WARE-
XIOUSE AND MAIL ORDER EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 743, INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTIIERIIOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN.
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. of L., PETITIONER
Case No. 13-RC-1065.Decided May 31, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor'
Relations Act, a hearing was held on March 20 and 21, 1950, before-
William J. Scott, 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 engaged in commerce within the meaning of the-
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of-
the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer operates a large department store in Chicago, Illinois,.
and suburban stores in Evanston, Oak Park, and Lake Forest, Illinois.
To service these stores, the Employer also operates in the Chicago
area a•warehouse at 2653 W. Arthington Street, a warehouse at 460 E.
Ohio Street, an "outside service building" at 58 E. 25th Street, a build-
ing at 120 West Lake Street used primarily for the Employer's mail
order operation, a delivery station and garage on Polk Street, and two
subdelivery stations in west Chicago and Evanston. These properties
are all located at considerable distances from each other.
The unit described in the petition includes certain enumerated job
classifications comprising essentially all the Employer's warehousing
and stock-handling employees employed at the 25th Street, Arthing-
ton, and Ohio Street operations., One of the intervenors, Local 242,
Building Service Employees International Union of North America,
I The unit set forth in the petition is as follows :
All full -time and short -hour regular employees performing the following jobs : cabinet
craftsman , outside serviceman ( furniture ), upholstery craftsman , finisher craftsman, cabi-
90 NLRB No. S.
1
903S47-51-----2
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AFL, herein called Local 242, claims a contract bar as to the 25th
Street employees. In view of this, the Petitioner alternatively pro-
poses a unit comprised of employees at the Ohio Street and Arthing-
ton operations. The other intervenor, Local 291, Building Service
Employees International Union of North America, AFL, herein called
Local 291, which claims representation only over the Ohio Street and
Arthington operations, concurs in this alternative unit contention.
The Employer agrees with Local 242 that their contract covers 25th
Street, but seeks rejection of both proposed units on the ground that
they are not sufficiently broad in scope to be appropriate. As we agree,
for the reasons set forth below, with the Employer's contention that
either of the alternative units sought by the Petitioner is too restricted
to be appropriate, it is unnecessary to pass upon the contract bar issue.
4. The alleged appropriate units :
Representation proceedings involving the Marshall Field ware-
houses first came before the Board in 1941.2 At that time, and at all
times since, a substantial portion of stock-storage and materials-han-
dling operations were lodged in the main store. Contrary to an Em;
ployer contention that it was too narrow, the Board found appropriate
a single unit of all outside-warehouse employees, basing its decision on
separate supervision and payrolls. In 1946, the Board reaffirmed its
1941 decision ; on this occasion the Employer did not contest the appro-
priateness of the proposed unit beyond stating that it preferred a
larger one.3 Thereafter, Local 291 was certified as the bargaining
representative of the outside-warehouse employees. In the meantime,
Local 242 had won bargaining rights for, inter alia, the warehousing
and stock-handling employees in the main store'
As the years went by, the two'BSEIU locals began to bargain con-
currently ; in 1948, they executed substantially identical contracts
covering the identical or similar job classifications represented by each
net repairman , utility repairman , expeditor , head stockman ( supply service ), receiving
clerk ( returned goods ), head of radio stock , head stockman, inspector , finisher repairman,
cabinet assembler , freight shipper , furniture and bulk exchange clerk , furniture packer
and crater , receiving clerk (open stock ), rug inspector and wrapper , assistant furniture
and truck dispatcher , fork lift truck operator , checker , checker and baler , furniture trailer
loader, stockman (carpets and rugs), stockman (supply control), stockman (general,
Ohio St.), furniture uncrater, assembler , furniture wrapper , order filler ( heavy), re-
ceiving clerk ( closed stock ), sorter, stockman (general ), bulk trailer loader , order filler
(light ), porter, upholstery repairman , and freight elevator operator , excluding clerical
employees ( other than receiving clerks ), supervisory employees, guards, watchmen, and
professional employees as defined by the Act.
, Marshall Field & Company , 35 NLRB 1200 , 37 NLRB 469 . At that time there were
four warehouses . Since then, two have been abandoned , the Arthington warehouse has
been placed in operation , and the functions of the two remaining properties of the original
four-Ohio Street and 25th Street-have been changed in part . See footnote 5, infra.
3 Marshall Field & Company, 67 NLRB 1367.
' Marshall Field & Company , 57 NLRB 1244 . Local 242 is also certified for the house-
keeping-elevator , engineering , bakery, candy shop, and restaurant employees in the main
store. 36 NLRB 748, 37 NLRB 36, 3S NLRB 1146, 57 NLRB 1244, 74 NLRB 411.
MARSHALL FIELD & COMPANY 3
local . Although the contracts were negotiated at the same time, the
parties met separately . However, Martin Heckmann , an international
representative of the parent organization , participated in both sets of
negotiations.'
As indicated above, the 1941 warehouse decision was apparently
based on a departmental unit theory , with all the employees in the
unit under common , separate supervision . This is no longer the sit-
uation. The Employer 's Chicago retail operations are now headed
by a vice president and general manager. Directly under him are the
general merchandise manager, who directs sales functions in the main
store and all mail order and suburban store operations , the general
operations manager, who heads five nonsales operating divisions, and
certain staff officers.
The five nonsales operating divisions under the general operations
manager are : operating and delivery service, customer services and
standards , workrooms , construction and maintenance , and restaurants.
Each of these divisions is headed by a manager.
All the employees involved in the present proceeding are ultimately
under the supervision of the operating and delivery service manager,
whose office is in the main store, and who directs from there the
managers of four subdivisions ( called "Services") under him. These
are: traffic , receiving and stock ; inspecting and packing ; delivery;
and warehouse.
The warehouse service manager ultimately supervises all the em-
ployees in the Arthington warehouse . e Also under him are certain
warehouse employees at Ohio Street . The inspecting and packing
service manager ultimately directs the remaining Ohio Street em-
ployees, and also has some functional control over part of the 25th
Street operation . The traffic , receiving and stock service manager
directs the balance of the 25th Street employees . However, both the
inspecting and packing service manager and the traffic, receiving and
stock service manager maintain their offices in the main store, where
' In 1948, in the course of an organizational and physical rearrangement of its facilities
which is still continuing , the Employer changed the function of its 25th Street property,
which had been one of the warehouses covered by the 1941 and 1946 certifications, into
what it calls an "outside service building. " This transition , which consisted principally
of a shift of stock -handling operations and employees from the main store to 25th Street
and in turn from 25th Street to Arthington , took place after the 1948 contracts had been
executed. When the 1949 contract negotiations came up, it appears that the Employer,
Local 242, and Local 291 contemplated that, because of the shift of employees from the
main store to 25th Street, 25th Street would come within Local 242's main store contract.
Although Local 242 and the Employer did not broaden the recognition clause in the con-
tract , which speaks only of, the main store , the appended wage schedule was expanded to
cover two new job classifications occasioned by the transfer , which are listed as "Porter
(25th Street )" and "Fork Lift Truck Oper ( 25th Street )." This contract does not expire
until May 14, 1951.
6 Except for employees in certain workrooms located in the Arthington warehouse. See
Marshall Field ct Company, 73 NLRB 900 ; Marshall Field 6 Company , 80 NLRB 557.
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they also direct work substantially identical to that performed in the
outside buildings.
The Employer has established a uniform system of job grading and
evaluation for all nonsales personnel. Employee benefits such as
medical care, insurance, and retirement are Employer-wide. Over
half of the 239 employees in the proposed unit work in the same or
directly comparable job classifications as those held by employees in
the Chicago retail operations who fall without both the proposed units..
There is considerable interchange of employees, not only between Local
242's main store unit and the units here proposed, but also to and from
departments outside these units.
In recent department store warehouse cases, the Board has denied
separate warehouse units in circumstances similar to the instant facts,.
where any party has claimed such units to be inappropriate. This
has been true both where the petitioner has sought to sever the ware-
house from a larger unit,' and where the petitioner has attempted to
set up such a unit in the absence of any previous bargaining history.8
Following the Employer's reorganization and changes in its super-
visory hierarchy, the reasons for this policy exist in the present case
interlacing supervisory authority, common personnel policies, simi-
larity of jobs within and without the unit, and interchange of em-
ployees. Thus it appears that the proposed units could be justified.
only on the basis of extent of organization, or on the history of collec=
.tive bargaining. The Act, however, forbids us to consider the first
basis as controlling; ° and, as to the second basis, the history of con=
current bargaining by the two BSEIU locals actually fortifies the
employer's contention that each of the proposed units is too narrow."
We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition herein.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in this matter be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
7 Stern Brothers , 81 NLRB 1386; Bloomingdale Brothers , Inc., 81 NLRB 1252; Namm'8
Inc., 81 NLRB 1019.
8 Miller and Rhodes, Inc., 86 NLRB 625; Cohen Brothers, 87 NLRB 1059 . Cf. Sears, Roe-
buck R Co., 82 NLRB 985 (appropriateness of warehouse unit not contested) ; Montgomery
Ward Co., Incorporated , 89 NLRB No . 70 (all warehousing employees in single unit under
separate supervision).
9 Section 9 (c) (5) ; see Mandel Brothers , Inc., 77 NLRB 512.
10 Cf. Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109.