Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 609 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of MONTGOMERY WARD & Co., INCORPORATED, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL BROTxrxlloov OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFFURS,
WARE71oUSEAU N AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 294, A. F. L.,
PETITION ER
Cases Nos. 2-RC-1672, 2-RC-1676, and 2-RC-1683.-Decided
June V, 19,50
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed nuclei Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Merton C. Bern-
stein, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel. [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock].
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 organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
.In Case No. 2-RC-1672, the Petitioner seeks a unit of all the ware-
house employees employed at the Employer's warehouse located at
1275 Broadway, Albany, New York, herein referred to as the A. P. W.
warehouse. In Case No. 2-RC-1676, the Petitioner seeks a unit of
all the warehouse employees employed at.the Employer's warehouse
in Troy, New York, herein referred to as the. Troy warehouse. In
Case No. 2-RC-1683, the Petitioner seeks a unit of all warehouse em-
ployees employed at the Employer's warehouse located on Dongan
Street, Menands, New York, herein referred to as the Dongan ware-
house. The Employer opposes the establishment of the three -units
proposed by the Petitioner and contends (1) that the employees in the
A. P. W. warehouse should be included in the same unit with the em-
90 NLRB No. 98.
903847-51-vol . 90-40 609
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees in the Employer's retail department store. at Albany, New
York, and (2) that the employees in the Troy and Dongan warehouses
should be combined in the same unit with the employees in the Em-
ployer's mail order house at Albany, New York.
The Employer operates a retail department store and a mail order
house in Albany, New York. These two enterprises function inde-
pendently of each other and are separately managed. The retail store
occupies the first three floors and part of the fourth floor of the east
section of an eight-story building which is located at 150 Broadway.
The balance of the building is occupied by the Employer's mail. order
house business. In conjunction with the operation of its retail store,
the Employer maintains the A. P. W. warehouse which is about 1 mile
from the store. The employees attached to this warehouse are the
employees whom the Petitioner seeks in Case No. 2-RC-1672. On the
other hand, the Troy and Dongan warehouses, whose respective em-
ployees the Petitioner seeks in Cases Nos. 2-RC-1676 and 2-RC-1683,
are operated in conjunction with the Employer's mail order house
business. These two warehouses are about 3 miles apart and a dis-
tance of approximately 3 and 4 miles respectively from the mail order
house. The collective bargaining history of the Employer shows that
in 1944, the New York State Labor Board certified the Retail, Mail
Order and Warehouse Employees Union, Local No. 40, CIO, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the regular employees in
each of the Employer's two businesses, including in each business the
employees assigned to the warehouses connected with them. How-
ever, no collective bargaining contract was ever entered into on behalf
of the employees in either business, although efforts were made toward
that end.
The Unit in Case No. 2-RC-1672
The A. P. W. warehouse, whose employees are here requested, is used
for the storage of bulky items, such as building materials, electrical
appliances, suites of furniture, mattresses, springs, and plumbing sup-
plies. Reserve stocks of all other merchandise handled by the Em-
ployer are stored in the retail store, either on the fourth floor which is
devoted exclusively to warehousing activities, or in areas on the first
floor which have been reserved for storage. Incoming merchandise is
received at both the A. P. W. warehouse and the store with neither
facility necessarily receiving only those items customarily stored there.
Upon the arrival of new merchandise, the heads of selling depart-
ments are notified and it is these individuals who determine whether
the goods are to be routed directly to selling departments, reserve
stockrooms in the retail store, or to storage areas. It also appears
MONT'GOME 'RY WARD & CO ., INCORPORATED 611
that merchandise is prepared for delivery and shipment to customers
at both the A. P. W. warehouse and the retail store and that substan-
tially the same procedure is followed. All deliveries to areas outside
the capital district are made ' from the A. P. W. warehouse while -de-
liveries to the areas within the capital district are made from the retail
store. Customer returns are usually received at the A. P. W. ware-
house, irrespective of whether the goods had been shipped from the
warehouse or the store..
All the warehousing, receiving, and shipping activities of the Em-
ployer, whether performed at the A. P. W. warehouse or the retail
store, are supervised by an operating manager. Under him in the
warehouse and the store are separate supervisors who are in direct
charge of these activities. Of the 60 employees who devote their full
time to these activities, about 20 are assigned to the A. P. W. ware-
house. Among the latter employees are a number of categories, such
as stockman and order filler, shipper, receiver, detail clerk, and laborer,
which are also found in the retail store. The record shows that in the
-performance of their duties, warehouse personnel are frequently sent
to the store and that store employees have occasion to go to the ware-
house. Employees at both the A. P. W. warehouse and the retail store
.are hired by the personnel manager who formulates and administers
personnel policy for the Employer. All employees are subject to the
same labor policy, have the same workweek, and participate in the
same employee benefits, such as group insurance, cash discounts, holi-
days, -and vacations.
It is clear from the foregoing facts and from the record as a whole
that the activities at the A. P. W. warehouse are closely integrated
with those of the retail store; that there is a regular interchange of
merchandise between the A.. P. W. warehouse and the retail store;
-that there is-some face-to-face contact between the employees at the
warehouse and the store; that the employees attached to the A. P. W.
warehouse perform work similar to that of certain store employees ;
-that the interests with respect to conditions of employment of all the
-Employer's employees are closely related. We believe, therefore, that
the proposed unit is too limited in scope to constitute a separate ap-
propriate unit.' The only persuasive basis for its establishment that
we can perceive is the extent of the Petitioner's organization among
-the Employer's employees. However, the Act as amended, precludes
a finding on this basis alone.2 Accordingly, we find that the unit re-
quested by the Petitioner in Case No. 2-RC-1672. is inappropriate
I Miller and Rhoads , Incorporated , 86 NLRB 625 ; J. L. Brandeis h Sons, 82 NLRB 806 ;
- Montgomery Ward i Co ., Incorporated, 77 NLRB 1363.
2 Section 9 (c) (5) ; see Mandel Brothers, Inc., 77 NLRB 512.
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for collective bargaining purposes. We shall, therefore dismiss the
petition.
The Units in Cases Nos. 2-RC-1676 and 2-RC-1683
As indicated above, in these two cases, the Petitioner seeks separate,
units of employees employed at the Employer's Troy and Dongan
warehouses. These two warehouses service the Employer's Albany
mail order house which conducts its operations under a unified man-
agement. The Troy warehouse is used for the storage of furniture
while the Dongan warehouse stores building materials. The numerous
other items sold by the mail order house are stocked in its main bu* ild-
ing. Orders for merchandise stored in the warehouses are received
at the mail order house and after they are entered and checked, are
routed to the warehouses to be filled. Goods may be shipped direct
from the warehouses if the order does not also contain requests for
merchandise carried in the mail order house. In such cases, the goods
are sent to the mail order house and shipped together with the other
items. Whether shipment is made from the warehouses or from the
mail order house, substantially the same procedure is followed and
the same functions performed.
Practically all the employees attached to the Troy and Dongaii
warehouses, which together employ a total of 38 persons,3 have counter-
parts in the mail order house. The record shows that there are 48
employees in the mail order house whose functions and job titles are
identical to those of employees in the warehouses. The employees at
all 3 locations are subject to the same personnel policy and the same
company policy with respect to wages, hours, vacations, holidays, in-
surance benefits, and other conditions of employment. It also appears
that there is some interchange between warehouse personnel and mail
order house employees and occasionally some transfers.
For the reasons set forth above in Case No. 2-RC-1672, including
the integration between the activities of the Troy .and Dorgan ware-
houses and those of the mail order house, and the fact that the ware-
house personnel perform duties similar to a number of employees iii
the mail order house, we find that there is insufficient basis for estab-
lishing the employees in the Troy and Dongan warehouses in separate
units apart from the employees in the mail order house. Accordingly,
we find that the units requested by the Petitioner in Cases Nos. 2-
RC-1676 and 2-RC-1683 are inappropriate for collective bargaining
purposes. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petitions in these two,
cases.
D The Troy warehouse employs 20 persons and the Dongan, 18.
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INCORPORATED
ORDER
613
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in Cases Nos. 2-RC-
1672, 2-RC-1676, and 2-RC-1683 by International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
294, A. F. L., be, and they hereby are, dismissed.