Montgomery Ward & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1155 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

MONTGOMERY WARD & Co. 1155
to such a segment, and find it inappropriate.' Accordingly, we will
dismiss the petition.
In view of our decision to dismiss the petition because of the in-
appropriateness of the unit requested, it is unnecessary to pass upon
the Employer's contention that the Petitioner is barred from rep-
resenting the employees involved because of their exclusion from the
contract covering production and warehouse employees.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER MruwocK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
1 See E. 1, Dupont de Nemours and Company, Inc., Consttiuction Division, Savannah
River Plant, 107 NLRB 734, 747; Y. H. McGraw & Company, 106 NLRB 624, 626.
Montgomery Ward & Co. and Department and Specialty Store
Employees Union Local 1265, Retail Clerks International As-
sociation, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-2770. November 16,
1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board herein on August 17, 1955,1 an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on September 12, 1955, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, among the employees
of the Employer in the unit found appropriate in the Decision. At
the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally
of ballots which showed that of approximately 354 eligible voters, 253
cast ballots, of which 125 were for the Petitioner, 81 were for the
Ir tervenor,2 42 were against both labor organizations, 4 were chal-
ieied, and 1 was void.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the Board's
Rules and Regulations, investigated them and on October 16, 1955,
issued and duly served upon the parties a report on challenged ballots,
in which he recommended that the Board sustain the challenges to the
ballots of Phyllis Plastrik and Anita George, overrule those to the
ballots of Florence Florey and Gloria Reitan, open and count the lat-
ter two ballots, and issue a revised tally of ballots. The Petitioner
1113 NLRB 798.
2 warehousemen's Union Local 853, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chattffeurs,
Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL.
114 NLRB No. 167.
387644--56-voL 114-74
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
filed exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendation for the
disposition of the Florey and Reitan ballots. The Employer filed a
document in support of the Regional Director's recommendations.
No exceptions were taken to the Regional Director's finding that
Plastrik and George had been terminated before the election and to
his recommendation that the challenges to their ballots be sustained.
In view of the lack of exceptions, we hereby adopt the Regional Di-
rector's recommendation and sustain the challenges to the ballots of
Plastrik and George.
The Petitioner excepts to the Regional Director's recommendation
that the challenges to the ballots of Florey and Reitan be overruled.
The Regional Director based his recommendation on undisputed facts
discovered in his investigation. Florey and Reitan were employees of
the receiving department of the Employer's retail store during the
eligibility period and on the day of the election, although they were
working at warehouse No. 5. They were supervised by the manager
in charge of the store receiving department, were engaged in price-
marking soft goods for the store receiving department, and were' on
the retail store payroll.
The Petitioner points out that Florey and Reitan were working at
warehouse No. 5 at the time of the election and that the unit found
appropriate in the Board's Decision was one "excluding employees at
the Company's warehouses Nos. 4 and 5." The Petitioner argues that,
as Florey and Reitan were working at warehouse No. 5 at the time of
the election, they were excluded from the unit and ineligible to vote.3
As noted above, Florey and Reitan were supervised by a retail store
manager, were on the store payroll, and were doing store receiving
department work. Manifestly they had interests in common with the
Employer's other retail store employees. In establishing and describ-
ing units appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining the
Board strives to give meaning and practical effect to the actual day-to-
day relationships among employees. The Board's aim is best served
by giving controlling effect to the community of interest existing
among employees; the particular language the Board uses in describing
appropriate units is intended to further that purpose. In describing
an appropriate unit in the Decision in this case the Board intended to
include in that unit all the Employer's retail store employees sharing
common interests. Florey and Reitan were within that class. Ac-
cordingly, we reject the Petitioner's request for a technical interpreta-
tion of the unit described in the Decision and find that Florey and
Reitan were included in the unit of store employees.
8 The fact that Florey and Reitan were working at warehouse No. 5 was not brought
out at the hearing and, consequently, their unit placement was not considered by the
Board in its Decision.
HOOK DRUGS, INC. 1157
We therefore adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that
the challenges to the ballots of Florey and Reitan be overruled and
shall direct that their ballots be opened and counted.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Twentieth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballots of Florence Florey and Gloria Reitan cast
in the election held herein on September 12, 1955, and serve upon the
parties to the proceeding a revised tally of ballots.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Direction.
Hook Drugs , Inc. and Local 135, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 35-RC-1137. November 16, 1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,' an election by
:secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Ninth Region among the employees in the
unit found appropriate by the Board. Upon conclusion 'of the elec-
tion a tally of ballots was furnished the parties, showing that of ap-
proximately 72 eligible voters, 61 cast ballots, of which 30 were for the
Petitioner, 25 against the Petitioner, and 6 were challenged. No ob-
jections to the conduct of the election were filed by either of the
parties.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the re-
sults of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the Board's
Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, on September
30, 1955, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged
ballots. 'In his report, the Regional Director recommended that chal-
lenges to the ballots of certain employees be sustained and challenges
,to the ballots of other employees be overruled. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report and requested
.a hearing in this matter 2
Harold Bashore: The Petitioner challenged the ballot of Bashore
on the ground that he was not within the appropriate unit of "all
warehouse and commissary employees at the Employer's Indianapolis,
i Issued June 22, 1965 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
g As our disposition of the challenged ballots does not involve the resolution of sub-
stantial and material factual issues, we deny the Employer's request for a hearing.
114 NLRB No. 161.