Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 29, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 254 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INCORPORATED, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL
116, AFL, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 16-RC-408 and 16-IBC-409.Decided November 29, 19.19
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed and consolidated, a hearing was held be-
fore Joseph A. Butler, 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
the case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Gray].
Upon the entire record in the 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. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer in Case No. 16-RC-408,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act. However, for the reasons stated below, we find that no
such question exists in Case No. 16-RC-409
4. The Petitioner seeks two separate units of the Employer' s mail-
order employees at the Fort Worth house. In Case No. 16-RC-408,
it seeks a one-department unit of building operation and maintenance
employees; in Case No. 16-RC-409, it proposes a one-department unit
composed primarily of mechanical and electrical appliance repairmen.
The Employer opposes both units, contending that the functions of
the employees concerned are an essential and integral part of its mail-
1 For the same reasons the Employer 's motion to dismiss, which was made after the
hearing, is denied as to Case No. 16-RC-408 and is granted as to Case No. 16-RC-409.
87 NLRB No. 35.
254
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INCORPORATED 255
order business and that only a single unit composed of all of its mail-
order employees is appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.2
The Employer is engaged at Fort Worth, Texas, in the operation of
a mail-order house and retail store, both of which are housed in a
single 8-story building.' The approximately 1,500 employees of
the mail-order house work in about 32 separately supervised adminis-
trative departments, under the general supervision of the Employer's
house manager. The Petitioner seeks to represent in separate units
all of the nonsupervisory employees in two of these departments-
maintenance and repair service.
Case No. 16-RC-408
The maintenance department, composed of approximately 51 em-
ployees, services and repairs the mail-order house and grounds, oper-
ates elevators, and repairs the mechanical equipment of the building,
including elevators, conveyors, and office equipment. The work of
these employees, although of necessity integrated to some extent with
that of the other employees in the mail-order house, is not a direct
part of the Employer's merchandising operation. Moreover, there is
little interchange between the employees of the maintenance depart-
ment and those of the other departments. In these circumstances,
and because we have previously found such groups of maintenance
employees to be sufficiently homogeneous and identifiable to warrant
establishing them in separate units ,4 we find that the employees in
the Employer's mail-order maintenance department at its Fort Worth,
Texas, nail-order house, excluding guards, watchmen, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
Case No. 16-RC-409
The repair service department, which the Petitioner seeks as a
separate departmental unit, is composed of approximately 50 em-
2 In support of its position, the Employer relies in part upon our prior determination, 4
years ago , that all of the mail-order employees at Fort Worth, with certain minor excep.
tions , constituted a single appropriate bargaining unit ( Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorpo-
rated, 64 NLRB 674). Although that determination is entitled to weight in this proceeding,
it is not controlling , in view of additional evidence in this case concerning the smaller units
now sought . In the earlier case neither the Employer nor the union sought separate
bargaining units consisting of the employees here involved , and there was no evidence to
show the appropriateness of such units . Moreover, the union in the earlier case, although
certified by the Board on December 5, 1945, maintained contractual relations with the
Employer for only 1 year, and did not intervene in this proceeding.
3 This proceeding does not concern the employees in the retail store.
4 See Thalhimer Brothers , Incorporated, 83 NLRB 664 , and cases cited therein.
. 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD
ployees. They are engaged primarily in making minor repairs on
mechanical and electrical appliances which have been damaged in
shipment or which require such repairs after they have been sold to
customers . However, the employees concerned are admittedly not
craftsmen . In addition , it appears that some of the employees in
other departments not only possess job classifications which are iden-
tical with those of employees in the proposed unit, but also perform.
the same sort of repairs . For these reasons, and because approxi-
mately 15 percent of the work of the repair -service department consists
of regular merchandising work in handling replacement parts ordered
by customers , we conclude that the repair service department is inap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining , either as a craft
group or as a department with duties clearly distinct from those of
the other departments in the mail -order house . We shall , therefore,
dismiss the petition in Case No. 16-RC-409.
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 super-
vision 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 , 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
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 bar-
gaining, by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
116, AFL.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 16-RC-409 be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.