Montgomery Ward & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1941

31 N.L.R.B. 912 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter Of MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY and ' OFFICE EAI-
PLOYEES UNION No. 16821, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERA-
TION OF LABOR
Case No. R4483.-Decided May 16, 1941
Jurisdiction : general merchandising mail order industry.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where union has not made a suffi-
cient showing of present representation of employees in the alleged appropriate
unit to raise -a question concerning representation of employees in such unit.
Mr. Patrick H. Walker, for the Board.
Mr. George P. Brown, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. James Landye, of Portland, Oreg., for the Union.
Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 21, 1941, Office Employees Union No. 16821, herein
called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Nineteenth
Region (Seattle, Washington) a petition alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Montgomery Ward & Company; Portland, Oregon, herein
called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification
of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On March 17,
1941, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section
3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the
Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice.
On March 31, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies bf which"were duly served upon the Company and the Union.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on April 18, 1941, at Portland,
Oregon, before George Bokat, the Trial Examiner duly designated
31 N. L. R. B., No. 153.
912
MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY 913
by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the Company, and the
Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses,
and to - introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Company moved
to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Union had not presented
a prima facie case spelling out an appropriate unit or showing that
the Union represents a majority of the employees it claims constitute
such a unit. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling thereon. The
motion is hereby granted for the reasons stated in Section III below.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Montgomery Ward & Company is an Illinois corporation engaged
in the sale and distribution of general merchandise at retail through
the media ,of mail order houses and retail . stores . The Company
operates 9 mail order houses and. 650 retail stores throughout the
,United States. This proceeding is concerned solely with its mail
order house and retail store in Portland, Oregon. Approximately
90 per cent of the merchandise handled at the mail order house and
retail store at Portland is shipped to Portland from points outside
the State of Oregon. The sales of the mail order house in-Portland
amount to about $13,000,000 annually, approximately 60 per cent of
which represents goods • delivered to customers outside the State of
Oregon. The retail store at Portland sells goods valued at about
$3,000,000 annually, less than 1/9 of 1 per cent of which are delivered
to customers outside the State of Oregon. The Company employs
about 1 ,200 persons at its mail order house and about 175 persons
at its retail store in Portland. The Company admits that its mail
order house in Portland is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board.
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Office Employees Union No. 16821 is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership
employees at the retail store and mail order house of the Company
at Portland , Oregon.
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE QUESTION ' CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Union urges that all office and clerical workers in the retail
store and mail order house of the Company at Portland, excluding
supervisory employees, constitute a single appropriate unit., The
showing of the Union as to the extent of its representation among the
Company's employees convinces us that a question has not arisen
concerning the representation of employees of the Company.
A report of the Regional Director introduced in evidence at the
-hearing recites that the Union submitted to hiln, in support of its
claim that it represents it substanial number of employees in the
unit alleged by it to be appropriate, 256 membership application
cards; that the cards were dated as follows : 2 in April 1940, 19 in
May 1940, 4 in June 1940, 31 in July 1940, 9 in August 1940, 15 in
September 1940, 4 in November 1940, 148 in December 1940; and
that 24 were undated; and that 209 of the cards, bearing apparently
genuine signatures, bore names of persons whose names appear on
the Company's pay rolls of December 5, 1940. There • are 924 em-
ployees on these pay rolls who are in the unit alleged to be appro-
priate by the Union.
On December 5, 1940, the Company's employees went on strike.
The strike was still current at the time of the hearing. It appears
that 488 employees whose names appear on the Company's pay rolls
of December 5, 1940, have been released by the Company since that
time, and that 420 new employees have been hired since December,
5, 1940. We are of the opinion that the Union has not made a suffi-
cient showing of present representation of employees, in the alleged
appropriate unit to raise _a question concerning representation of
employees in such unit.'
Accordingly, under the circumstances we find that no question
has arisen concerning the representation 'of. employees of the Com-
pany. We shall order the petition dismissed.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question has arisen concerning the representation of employees
of Montgomery Ward & Company, Portland, Oregon, within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
' The'Company 's contentions as to the appropriate unit are for a unit much largerfin
scope than that urged by the Union . The Union 's showing of representation in such unit
is much less than that in the unit urged by it.
MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY
ORDER
915
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion
of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
petition for investigation and certification of representatives of em-
ployees of Montgomery `yard & Company, Portland, Oregon, filed
by Office Employees Union No. 16821, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH dissenting :
I would direct an election in this case. On all the facts I would
hold that the unit urged by the Union is appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, and that the showing of the Union is sufficient
especially in_view of the fact that a strike, which was called by the
Union at the Company's mail-order house and retail store in Decem-
ber 1940, is still current. I would order that a pay Toll preceding the
date of the strike be used to determine eligibility to vote.
441843-42-vol. 31-59