Montgomery Ward & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 798 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for
that unit, which the Board under such circumstances finds to be appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority
vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing plantwide unit to
be appropriate, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of
results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER MURDocK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
Montgomery Ward & Co. and Department and Specialty Store
Employees Union Local 1265, Retail Clerks International As-
sociation , AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 20-RC-4770. August 17,
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 Shirley N. Bingham, 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 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 Petitioner requests a unit of all employees of the Employer's
retail store operation located at 29th Avenue and East 14th Street,
Oakland, California. The Employer contends that a unit of its retail
store employees should include the employees of its two retail store
warehouses Nos. 4 and 5. The Intervenor,' which represents the Com,
pany's mail order operation workers, claims that it also represents
i The Intervenor in this proceeding , Warehousemen 's Union Local 853, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen , and Helpers of America , AFL, on
April 6 , 1955, filed a petition for the Employer 's retail store warehouse employees in Case
No. 20-RC-2779. On May 9, 1955 , the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region ap-
proved the Teamsters ' request for withdrawal of the petition in Case No . 20-RC-2779.
113 NLRB No. 86.
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. 799
the employees at the retail store warehouses 4 and 5 and that, therefore,
they should not be included in a unit of the Employer's retail store
employees. At the hearing the Petitioner appeared to indicate that
an appropriate unit of the Employer's retail store employees might
include the employees of warehouses Nos. 4 and 5, but the Petitioner
did not clearly indicate that it desired to represent the latter em-
ployees and declined to amend the petition or broaden its scope in any
way.
The Employer's warehouses Nos. 4 and 5 are located at separate ad-
dresses, each about a mile from the main retail store. The employees
at those warehouses handle the warehousing and delivery of bulk
merchandise and work under the separate, immediate supervision of
a warehouse manager. Interchange between the employees of ware-
houses Nos. 4 and 5 and those at the main store is exceptional and
does not occur in the regular course of employment.
In 1941, the Petitioner and the Employer entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement covering the Employer's retail store employees
and warehouse employees. Thereafter, in 1945, the Petitioner dis-
claimed representation of the employees at warehouses Nos. 4 and 5,
and the Employer then recognized the Intervenor as the representative
of those employees. From that time to the present the Employer has
dealt with the Intervenor, on an informal basis, as the representative
of the employees of warehouses Nos. 4 and 5.
In the light of the, Petitioner's request for a unit limited to the em-
ployees at the retail store address, its disclaimer of the right to repre-
sent the employees of warehouses Nos. 4 and 5, and its failure to
broaden the scope of the unit described in the petition, we conclude
that the Petitioner does not seek an election including the employees of
warehouses Nos. 4 and 5. However, as the Petitioner does seek the
unit for which it has been bargaining since 1945, and the Board has
heretofore held such a unit appropriate, we find the following unit
to be appropriate 2 for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: all employees of the Employer's
Oakland, California, retail store, excluding employees at the Com-
pany's warehouses Nos. 4 and 5, the mail order operation employees,
confidential employees, technical and professional employees, guards,
department heads, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
2 Bond Stores , Incorporated, 99 NLRB 1029; Sears Roebuck & Company, 91 NLRB 1411.