Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1481 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INCORPORATED 1481
'they have to obtain authorization by the district manager. The store
managers may recommend increases in salary which may, however,
be granted only by the district manager.
On these facts, and on the entire record, we find that the Employer's
operations are centralized to a high degree, with respect to all 48
retail stores in the Chicago district. Because of the centralization of
these operations, the frequent interchange of personnel between the
stores, the uniform wages and working conditions of the employees,
and the fact that the District is the Employer's administrative divi-
sion, we find that only a unit embracing the employees of all the stores
in the Chicago district is appropriate? As the Petitioner is willing
to participate in an election in a districtwide unit, and has made a
,sufficient showing of interest in `such unit, we shall direct an elec-
tion therein.
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All full-time and regular part-time sales employees employed in
the 48 retail stores comprising the Employer's Chicago, Illinois, dis-
trict, including stores in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana, but exclud-
ing store managers, temporary and seasonal employees,4 professional
employees, guards, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Sparkle Markets Company, 113 NLRB 790; Jewel Food Stores, 111 NLRB 1368.
4 The parties stipulated that among the part-time employees, only those who had
worked 14 or more hours in each of 10 weeks in the 13-week period prior to this Direction
of Election should be eligible to vote. In accordance with that stipulation, we exclude
all part-time employees working less than the indicated number of hours.
Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated and Franklyn Doak, Pe-
titioner and Retail Clerks Union Local 373, Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association , AFL-CIO. Case No. 20-RD-151. May 7,
1957
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 M. C. Dempster,
,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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
mexnber, panel ,[Members Murdock, Rodgers, and Bean].
The Union contends, that the petition should be dismissed because
(1) the Petitioner, in effect, is a supervisor, and (2) he was aided in
117 NLRB No. 192.
1482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
obtaining the signatures to the petition by the Employer. The Peti-
tioner and the Employer contend that an election should be held on
the facts presented.
As to (1), it appears that the Petitioner has the title of "department
head," one of a number of such employees included in the stipulated
unit on the basis of which the Union was certified as bargaining agent
on June 21, 1955, in Case No. 20-RC-2808. In fact, 17 of the 40 eligible
voters in that election were classified as department heads, 11 in cler-
ical jobs, and only 6 as sales persons. However, the Union made
clear at the hearing that it was relying on the duties that Petitioner
testified he had, rather than his title, in support of its claim that he is
a supervisor. Asked whether he could recommend action to his
superiors concerning the one other employee in the department, the
Petitioner testified : "I suppose I could." Other than this, the record
shows only that Petitioner lacks authority to hire, discharge or dis-
cipline, and that he spends most of his time selling tires, batteries, oil,
and accessories outside of the store and that the other employee sells
inside the store. There is no evidence that he responsibly directs the
work of the other employee, only that he "assigns duties" to him with-
out indication as to what those duties are. We consider this testimony
and the testimony concerning the Petitioner's possible capacity to rec-
ommend disciplinary action insufficient to show that he has super-
visory powers, and find on this record that he is not a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.'
As to (2), the record shows only that some of the signatures in
support of the petition may have been obtained during working hours,
and that the petitioner took a day off to file it in the Regional Office
and was paid by the Employer for an entire week's work. There is
no basis for finding that the Employer actually knew of the circulation
of the petition, or was instrumental in having it circulated. Accord-
ingly we deny the Union's motion to dismiss .2
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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the bargaining representative of certain employees
of the Employer as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act. The Union
is currently recognized by the Employer as the exclusive representa-
tive of such employees. A contract entered into between them on
September 11, 1956, after the filing of this petition, is not urged as a
bar. The contract is not in evidence.
1 Cf. Bethlehem Steel Company, 111 NLRB 185.
2 See Dwyer et at., d/b/a Clackamas Logging Company, 113 NLRB 229; Philadelphia
Chewing Gum Corporation, 107 NLRB 997.
ROBINSON FREIGHT LINES 1483
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 following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees of the Employer's
Napa, California, retail store, excluding the manager, the assistant
manager, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. This unit
conforms to the stipulation of the parties and apparently to the con-
tract unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Jack C. Robinson , doing business as Robinson Freight Lines and
Chauffeurs , Teamsters , Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union
No. 621 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO
Jack C. Robinson , doing business as Robinson Freight Lines and
A. J. Buckner, John Brooks , Perry Coward and Ed Carnes.
Cases Nos. 10-CA-2236 and 10-CA-2326. May 8,1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
On January 27, February 1, and March 9, 1955, Chauffeurs, Team-
sters, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 621, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, AFL-CIO, filed original and amended charges in the
above-entitled proceeding, alleging that Jack C. Robinson, doing
business as Robinson Freight Lines, in order to discourage union
membership, and in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the
Act, had discriminated in the hire and tenure, terms, and conditions
of employment on and after December 13, 1954, with respect to John
Brooks, A. J. Buckner, Tom Carpenter, Perry Coward, Ed Carnes,
Eugene Evans, James Frazier, Boyd McNabb, Jr., Sam Smith, and
Claude Haynes.'
On May 23, 1955, a complaint based on the charge as amended was
issued. On June 2 and 3, 1955, individual charges alleging the same
violations were filed by A. J. Buckner, John Brooks, Perry Coward,
and Ed Carnes. A consolidated complaint based on these charges was
issued on June 8, 1955, alleging that the Respondent had engaged
'The original charge, filed January 27, 3957, listed 11 discriminatees, including Robert
Keaton and J R Reynolds The first amended charge, filed February 1, 1955, listed 12
discriminatees , adding Claude Haynes to the first list . The second amended charge, filed
March 9, 1955 , listed 10 discriminatees , removing Robert Keaton and J. R. Reynolds from
the list.
117 NLRB No. 195.