Mass Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 1886 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1886 u icisIQNs OF NATION-44 LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
not challenge the inclusion, of the strippers and negative assemblers
in the unit. Upon the present record we perceive no functional or
other basis for treating pasteup workers differently. -
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
(b) of the Act:
.All, liithograp'hic production employees covered by contract with
Amalgamated Lithographers of America, Local 45,, AFL-CIO, at
Acme Press of Seattle; American Printing & Lithographic Co.;. The
Craftsman Press; The Deers Press; Farwest Lithographic & Printing
Co.; Lowman & Hanford Printing Co.;, Metropolitan Press; National
Lithograph Co.; North Pacific Bank Note Co.; Ridgeway Lithograph
Co.; and University Printing Co.; all located in Seattle, Washington,
including artists, paste makeup workers, cameramen, negative assem-
blers, strippers, platemakers, step and repeat machine operators,
plate grainers, lithographic pressmen, -pressmen and pressfeeders,
varnish operators, general lithographic workers (male and female),
and fly ,boys,. excluding office clerical employees, all other employees,
all those lithographic pressmen, pressmen's assistant and pressfeeders
at The Craftsman Press, Lowman & Hanford Printing Co., and Uni-
versity Printing Co., who are under contract with International Print-
ing Pressmen and Assistants Union, AFL-CIO, and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Maas Brothers, Inc. and International Union of United Brewery,
Flour,' Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of Anierica,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1O-RC-4476. December 21, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing, was held before Lloyd R. Fraker, 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 organization involved claims to represent-certain em-
'ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer }within the meaning of S`ect'on
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
116 NLRB No. 281.
MAAS BROTHERS, INC. 1887
The Employer owns and operates retail department stores and
associated activities in the State of Florida. In the city of Tampa are
located the main department store, 2 branch stores, and 2 warehouses;
in Ybor City, located in the metropolitan area of Tampa about 3 miles
from the main store in Tampa, is a branch appliance store., About 5
miles from the main store at Sulphur Springs the Employer merchan-
dises used and rebuilt appliances and damaged and discontinued model
stock. The Plant City and Clearwater stores, located about 25 and 22,
miles, respectively, from Tampa are limited merchandise stores. All
of these stores are under the administrative supervision of the merchan-
dise managers of the main store. The general personnel director who
has offices at the main store in Tampa enforces and administers person-
nel policies of the Employer throughout the Tampa area, and the same
general policies of the Employer with respect to vacations, group
insurance, hospitalization, and medical benefits, and other similar
benefits are applied to all employees of that area. Additionally, the
Employer's employee rating program is consistent throughout the
Tampa area. The managers of these stores report directly to the man-
aging director of all the Employer's operations.' The stores in Sara-
sota, Lakeland, and St. Petersburg operated by the Employer are not
in the same administrative line.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all nonselling employees in the Em-
ployer's stores and warehouse in metropolitan Tampa, excluding all
sales personnel and office clericals. However, it indicated its willing-
ness to accept any unit the Board found appropriate. The Employer,
while taking no position as to the appropriate unit, contends that the
unit the Petitioner is seeking is inappropriate in that it does not in-
clude selling employees, and that the exclusion of office clericals as
interpreted by the Petitioner is too broad. In addition, the Em=
ployer urges that the Petitioner's request for an alternative unit is
stated with unreasonable indefiniteness and that a major modification
of the unit proposed is required for the Board to establish a proper
unit. For these reasons, the Employer asks that the Board dismiss the
petition herein. -
Without making extended argument concerning the geographic
scope of the unit, the Employer further states its opinion that the
minimum appropriate unit should. include all its operations in the
Tampa area rather than being confined to metropolitan Tampa. In
view of our determination below as to the basic composition of the
IIn a previous decision involving this Employer ( 88 NLRB 129 ) the Board discussed
in-some detail the Employer 's organization and operation. The parties agreed that the
statements in that decision , except as changes are referred to in testimony , exhibits,
and other evidence brought out at this hearing , substantially describe the operation of
the Employer . Similarly , that with respect to the categories of employees there referred
to, the record in Case No . 10-RC-3122, substantially describes the functions performed
by.those employees , except as changed by testimony and other evidence in this proceeding.
1888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the scope of the unit or upon
the status and unit placement of certain specific individuals and
categories.
We consider now the unit proposed by the Petitioner of nonselling
employees in metropolitan Tampa. The unit sought covers approxi-
mately 60 different categories of employees engaged in various unre-
lated functions, such as warehousemen, drivers, appliance repairmen,
bakery employees, electricians, cashiers, fitters, and tailors, etc. Geo-
graphically, these employees are located throughout the Tampa opera-
tions; for example, stockmen are found at the 2 warehouses and the
2 general department stores in Tampa; seamstresses and drivers at 1
of the warehouses and at both general department stores; and mer-
chandise clericals are found at all the retail stores. Administratively,
the nonselling employees work throughout four administrative
divisions.
The record shows that there is considerable overlapping of functions
between the selling and nonselling employees. For example : Out of
the 88 departments at the main department store, 12 have stockmen
assigned to the department, but sales personnel do their own stock-
work in the men's departments, the women's ready to wear depart-
ments, and hosiery department. The Employer estimated that ap-
proximately 30 percent of a salesperson's time is spent in stockwork.
From time to time, when all salesclerks are busy, stockmen make sales.
Further, the receiving and marking employees who are under the
functional supervision of the buyers of each department unpack,
check merchandise against packing slips, and affix price tickets. How-
ever, salespeople also mark merchandise, and in storewide sales, re-
ceiving and marking employees assist in selling. _
Many of the nonselling employees and selling employees work in the
same area. For example, unit control employees are assigned to the
selling area and are provided office space in the buyer's office. Too,
many of the nonselling employees have probably as much customer
contact as salespeople, particularly the drapery and carpet installers,
those employees working in fur storage, fitters, interviewers, and
cashiers.
It is clear from the above facts that nonselling employees and sales
employees perform duties interrelated and integrated and that there
is no clear line between them based on function, supervision, or geo-
graphic location. The group sought by the Petitioner therefore con-
stitutes a heterogeneous group without separate interest to warrant
establishment as a separate unit. For these reasons, and on the record
as a whole, we find a unit limited to nonselling employees inappro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining.'
2 Cf. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 112 NLRB 299. A. Harris f Co., 116
NLRB 1628.
JO-ART MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1889
'Although the Petitioner indicated that it desired an election in any
unit the Board might find appropriate, it does not have a sufficient
showing of interest in any unit that the Board could find appropriate
on this record. In these circumstances we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Jacob Zimmerman d/b/a Jo -Art Manufacturing Company and
Local 361, International Ladies' Garment - Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC-4678. December 21, 1956
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES'
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
executed by the parties on September 19, 1956, an election was con-
ducted on September 27, 1956, under the-direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the First Region, among employees in the
unit found appropriate herein. Upon the completion of the election
the parties were furnished with copies of the tally of ballots which
show that of approximately 32 eligible voters, 16 cast ballots for the
Petitioner, 12 cast ballots against the Petitioner, and 4 cast challenged
ballots.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the re-
sults of the election, the Regional Director conducted an investiga-
tion. On October 18, 1956, the Regional Director issued his report
on challenged ballots in which he -recommended that the challenge
to 1 of the 4 challenged ballots be sustained. As the remaining
challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of
the election, he recommended that they not be opened and that Peti-
tioner be certified as the bargaining representative of the employees
in the unit. The Regional Director also recommended that certain
objections of the Employer to conduct affecting, the results of the
election be overruled because they were untimely filed on October
8, 1956, and because they amounted to post-election challenges. There-
after, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Board has considered the challenges, the objections, the Re-
gional Director's report, the exceptions thereto and the entire record
in the case. Upon the foregoing the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) of the Act. .
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
116 NLRB No. 269.
405448-57-vol. 116-120