Montgomery Ward & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 976 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of MONTGOMERY 'WARD & COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS LOCAL No. 104, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 21-RC-807 .-Decided August 29, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Jerome Smith,
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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and
Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all warehouse employees at the
Employer's Phoenix, Arizona, warehouses, including shipping and
receiving clerks, furniture finishers and repairmen, working foremen,
truck drivers and helpers, service employees working in and out of
the warehouses, and merchandise markers.' The Employer objects to
the unit, contending that its warehouses constitute an integral part of
its Phoenix retail store, and that the appropriate unit should include
all nonsupervisory employees at both its store and warehouses. There
is no prior history of collective bargaining.
The Employer is engaged in retail merchandising at its Phoenix,
Arizona, store, and in connection therewith maintains 4 warehouses
The unit description appears as amended at the hearing.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 173.
976
MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY 977
which are physically separated from the store. Warehouse No. 1 is
located directly across an alley from the store and is used for the storage
of clothing items. Employed therein are 10 warehouse employees who,
are claimed by the Petitioner, and certain other employees not claimed
by the Petitioner.2 Warehouse No. 2 is located 11/2 miles from the
store, and contains hard line merchandise such as hardware and paint.
Working therein are 2 employees. Warehouse No. 3 is used for the
storage of furniture, rugs, and radios. It is situated one-half mile
from the store and houses 9 employees. Warehouse No. 4, which con-
tains appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, is lo-
cated 2x/2 miles from the store, and houses 5 employees. All of the
employees in the latter 3 warehouses are claimed by the Petitioner.
There are approximately 26 employees in the unit sought. Of this
number, 19 are engaged in typical warehouse duties, 4 are engaged in
placing price tags on merchandise,3 and the remaining 3 perform
service and repair work, being classified as servicemen.
There is a warehouse manager in charge of all four warehouses, but
each warehouse has a working foreman." Warehouse employees are
hired through a central personnel office located in the store. Both
store and warehouse employees are paid on an hourly basis, work the
same number of hours,5 and receive the same lunch and rest periods.
Warehouse personnel obtain their pay checks at the store. Occa-
sionally, store department heads visit the warehouses to check on de-
liveries and requisitions. Other than the foregoing, there is no con-
tact between warehouse and store personnel. There is no regular inter-
change of warehouse 6 and store employees, and no employees in the
store perform work comparable to that done in the warehouses.
As already noted, the Employer contends that the unit sought is
inappropriate because its warehouse operations are integrated with its
store operations, and further because working conditions, hours of
employment, and personnel policies are the same with respect to both
warehouse and store employees. While the Board has considered these
factors in determining whether warehouse employees should constitute
a separate unit or should be included in a larger one,7 no one here is
seeking a broader voting group. Moreover, it is well established that
2 The employees not claimed by the Petitioner are those in the display , will call, and
stock record departments.
8 These employees are classified as merchandise markers.
* The parties stipulated that these working foremen are not supervisors within the
meaning of the Act.
° Warehouse employees work daily from 9 a. in. to 5 p. in., whereas store employees
work daily from 9: 30 a. in . to 5: 30 p. in.
° The merchandise markers sometimes work as sales people, as noted hereinafter.
+ Matter of Stern Brothers , 81 N. L. It. B. 1386.
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
warehouse employees may constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.8
Since the employees sought herein are, geographically separated from
the store, are under separate supervision, do not regularly interchange
with or come in contact with store employees, and perform a different
type of work, we conclude, in the absence of collective bargaining his-
tory on a broader basis, that a unit of warehouse employees is
appropriate .9
There remains for consideration the placement of certain classifica-'
tions of employees.
Service department employees: 1° As part of the Employer's Phoenix
operation, there is a service department which is headed by a service
manager. Working in this department are 7 employees, 3 of whom the
Petitioner claims as warehouse employees," and 4 of whom the Peti-
tioner does not claim.12 The employees sought are engaged in the
servicing and repairing of merchandise. Their duties and interests
are different from those of warehouse employees 13 They are respon-
sible to the service manager rather than to the warehouse manager,
and their wages are charged against the Employer's service operation.
Furthermore, the Petitioner desires to include but a portion of the
Employer's service department. The Board has consistently refused
to establish as a departmental unit a portion of the employees of a
particular department 14 Under the circumstances, we shall exclude
all service department employees from the unit.
Truck drivers and helpers: 15 The Employer owns no vehicles for
regular deliveries and merchandise, but leases trucks for this purpose.
8 Matter of Sears, Roebuck and Co., 82 N. L. R. B. 985 ; Matter of Thalhimer Brothers
Incorporated, 77 N. L. R. B. 1249 ; Matter of Dorhrmann Hotel Supply Company, 71
N. L. It. B. 699.
0 Matter of Sears, Roebuck and Co., footnote 8, supra.
10 The Petitioner's position with respect to service department employees is ambiguous.
In its amended unit description the Petitioner claims "service employees working in and
out of the warehouses ." However , when asked by the hearing officer if it claimed the
service department employees located in warehouse No. 1, the Petitioner replied, "we do
not claim any of those because they don't do any work that we consider warehouse work."
11 The Petitioner claims the furniture finisher and furniture repairman employed at Ware-
house No. 3, together with the refrigerator serviceman employed at Warehouse No. 4,
,on the basis that they perform warehouse work.
12 The Petitioner does not claim the four service department employees working in
Warehouse No. 1. Two of these employees perform repair work on merchandise at cus-
tomers' homes. The remaining two are female employees, called service clerks, who keep
records of customers' complaints. As already noted, the Petitioner stated that it does not
consider that these employees perform warehouse work.
"See Matter of May flower Sales Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 69 , wherein the Board ex-
eluded refrigerator servicemen from a unit of warehouse employees on the basis that their
work and interests were different from those of the warehousemen.
1+ See Matter of Charles Smith Nash Company, 83 N. L. R. B. 511 ; Matter of Broad-
way Department Stores, 82 N. L. R. B. 176.
15 The record is not clear as to which truck drivers and helpers the Petitioner is seeking.
As shuttle trucks are used in transferring merchandise from the warehouses to the store,
. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY 979
Since the drivers and helpers on these leased trucks are employees of
the lessor rather than of the Employer, they shall be excluded from
the unit. However, there are two trucks owned by the Employer,
one of which is used to furnish repair service to customers' vehicles,
and the other of which is used to deliver and service merchandise.
Although the drivers of these two trucks are classified as servicemen,
the record does not disclose whether they are in fact a part of the serv-
ice department, described above, or of the warehouse department.
If they are a part of the warehouse department and are under ware-
house supervision, we shall include them within the unit; otherwise,
they shall be excluded.
Merchandise markers: There are 4 employees who are classified as
merchandise markers. Their duties are to unpack merchandise, check
it, and to put price tags on it. They are located in Warehouse No. 1
and are under the supervision of the warehouse manager. About two
or three times a month they work as sales people in the store during
rush periods. Since these employees spend the majority of their work-
time in the performance of warehouse duties, under warehouse super-
vision, we shall include them within the unit.
We find that all warehouse employees at the Employer's Phoenix,
Arizona, warehouses, including shipping and receiving clerks, work-
ing foremen, and merchandise markers, but excluding service, will
call, display, and stock record department employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of thg Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and. supervision
of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard,
and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, as amended, among the employees in
the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
we assume that the Petitioner is claiming drivers and helpers on these trucks . If such
employees are employed by the Employer and are under the supervision of the warehouse
manager , we shall include them within the unit.
857829-50-vol. 85-63
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers, Local No. 104, AFL.