Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 135 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INCORPORATED 135
Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated and Retail Clerks Union,
Local 1167, RCIA, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-5341.
March 11, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION
On July 23, 1958, Retail Clerks Union, Local 1167, RCIA, AFL-
'CIO, filed with the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region
(Los Angeles, California) a petition pursuant to Section 9(c) of
the Act, involving the representation of certain employees of Mont-
gomery Ward & Co., Incorporated. On July 31, 1958, the Petitioner
and the Employer entered into a "Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election," which was approved by the Regional Director
on August 4, 1958.
Pursuant to the stipulation, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on August 13, 1958, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director, among all the employees in the agreed
appropriate unit. The tally shows that there were approximately
.64 eligible voters, and that there were 58 ballots cast, of which 29
were for the Petitioner, 28 against the Petitioner, and 1 was chal-
lenged ; there were no void ballots.
The challenged ballot being sufficient to affect the results of the
election, the Regional Director investigated the challenge and on
November 13, 1958, issued and duly served upon the parties his
"Report on Challenged Ballot," in which he recommended that the
challenge be overruled and the ballot be counted. The Petitioner
filed timely exceptions to this report.
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 Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
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 certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agreed, and 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 employees of the Employer's Riverside, California, retail store,
excluding the manager, assistant managers, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
123 NLRB No. 17.
136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. The exceptions :
The Petitioner excepted to the Regional Director's finding that
Vernon Craig (whose ballot was challenged) was not a supervisor.
However, the Regional Director's report shows that the instruc-
tions relayed by Craig to other employees were either routine or
clerical in nature and did not require the exercise of independent
judgment or responsible direction. Moreover, at no time did Craig,
as a management trainee, possess the power to take, or make effec-
tive recommendations as to, personnel action. In these circumstances
we adopt the Regional Director's finding that Craig was not a
supervisor.
The Petitioner also excepted to the Regional Director's finding
that a unit including Craig was agreed upon by the parties as
appropriate and should be adopted by the Board. However, the
Regional Director's report shows that the Petitioner had agreed
to include in the unit all employees at the Employer's Riverside
store, except for classifications required by the Act to be excluded.
Craig was an employee at the Riverside store and did not fall into
any excluded classification. Although Craig had interests as a
management trainee which were different from those of the rank-
and-file employees included in the unit, and although the cases dis-
cussed in the Petitioner's brief show that the Board might have
excluded Craig for this reason if it had been called on to determine
the appropriate unit, the Petitioner here has voluntarily agreed
with the Employer that the appropriate unit included all employees
at the Riverside store except for supervisors and other statutory
exceptions. We cannot agree with the Petitioner's argument that
it should now be permitted to disregard its previous agreement as
to the appropriate unit.,- Accordingly, we adopt the Regional
Director's finding that Craig is included in the agreed appropriate
unit, and that his ballot should be opened and counted.
In view of the foregoing, we shall direct that Craig's ballot be
opened and counted.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region shall, within 10 days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballot of Vernon Craig, and serve upon the
parties a supplemental tally of ballots.]
1 Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co., 117 NLRB 744.
Standard Steel Corporation and Engineers and Architects Asso-
ciation , Petitioner. Case No. 921-RC-5502. March 11, 1959
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
On December 19, 1958, pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election, an election was conducted under the direction
123 NLRB No. 25.