Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1961

132 N.L.R.B. 656 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

656, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(B ) of the Act.
6. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Association , as found above, the
.Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(3) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and 2 (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
,Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated i and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local #377, Petitioner
'Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated and Retail Clerks Inter-
national Association , Local 298, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases
Nos. 8-RC-4081 and 8-RC-4087. July 31, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Nora
Friel, hearing officer.2 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
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 Petitioner in Case No. 8-RC-4081, hereinafter called Team-
sters, seeks to represent service employees, drivers and helpers, and
warehousemen, including shipping and receiving employees, at the
Employer's Youngstown retail store, located in two establishments in
Youngstown, Ohio, viz, Liberty Plaza, located at Belmont Avenue, and
Boardman Plaza, located at Boardman-Canfield Road, but excluding
1 The Employer 's name appears as corrected at the hearing.
The Employer filed a motion to set aside the order consolidating cases, the notice of
hearing, and that part of the record pertaining to Case No . 8-RC-4087 on the ground that
,no investigation was made by the Regional Director to determine whether a question con-
cerning representation exists. The motion is defiled inasmuch as we are satisfied that
such an investigation was made. Moreover , preliminary investigation of showing of inter-
est is a matter for administrative determination only,and is not litigible by the parties.
Accord : Louisiana Gas Service Co., 126 NLRB 147 . We are also satisfied as-to the
adequacy of the showing.
132 NLRB No. 45.
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INCORPORATED 657
all office clerical employees, clerks, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Petitioner in Case No. 8-RC-4087, hereinafter called Retail
Clerks, seeks to represent all employees not sought by the Teamsters,
i.e., sales, clerical, maintenance, custodial, and office clerical employees
of the Employer at its above-named establishments in Youngstown,
Ohio, but excluding drivers and helpers, service repair employees, auto
service repair employees, shipping and receiving employees, and all
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Both Teamsters and Retail Clerks are willing to appear as joint
petitioners in the event a storewide unit is found to be appropriate.
The Employer contends that neither unit is appropriate, as the only
appropriate unit is a storewide unit comprising both locations.
The two stores are engaged in the sale of soft goods, home furnish-
ings, hardware, sporting goods, housewares, tires, and auto accessories
under common management. There is no history of collective bar-
gaining at the stores in question.
Although the Teamsters unit includes warehousemen who may under
certain conditions constitute an appropriate unit, such a unit is not
appropriate where, as here, the warehousing operation is a part of and
under the same supervision as the retail store operations.' As the evi-
dence does not show that the service employees sought by the Team-
sters are craftsmen, no basis exists for establishing a separate unit for
them. Finally, although the truckdrivers might constitute an appro-
priate unit, the Teamsters does not seek to represent them alone.
Accordingly, we find that the unit sought by the Teamsters is
inappropriate.
As the unit sought by the Retail Clerks excludes employees possess-
ing similar interests, working conditions, and the same supervision as
the employee sought, we find it to be inappropriate. The more compre-
hensive unit, consisting of the two establishments which make up
the Employer's Youngstown, Ohio, retail store, does, in conformity
with Board precedent, constitute an appropriate unit. Accordingly
we find the more comprehensive unit appropriate 4
The, parties agree that the store manager and the assistant store
manager are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The Em-
ployer contends, however, that its group supervisors, catalog man=
agers, credit manager, and repair service manager are also supervisors
while the Teamsters and Retail Clerks contend they are not. As the
record indicates that each of the individuals in question, who is sal-
aried and does not punch the timeclock, has the authority to hire, dis-
charge, and effectively recommend the same, we find them to be super-
8 A. Harris & Co., 116 NLRB 1628.
4Polk Brothers, Inc., 128 NLRB 330.; T. P., Taylor & Company, Inc., et at ., 115 NLRB
376.
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visors within the meaning of the Act and accordingly exclude them
from the unit.
In view of the foregoing, we find that all employees of Montgomery
Ward & Co., Incorporated, employed in its retail store located in two
establishments, at Liberty Plaza, Belmont Avenue, and at Boardman
Plaza, Boardman-Canfield Road, Youngstown, Ohio, but excluding
the store manager, the assistant store manager, group supervisors, the
credit department manager, the catalog managers, the repair service
manager, and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Detroit Association of Plumbing Contractors and James P.
Duffy
Mechanical Contractors Association of Detroit and James P.
Duffy
Farrington Company and James P. Duffy
Goss Mechanical Contractors Company and James P. Duffy
J. W. Partlan Company and James P. Duffy
Stanley Carter Company and James P. Duffy
Donald Miller Company and James P. Duffy
Johnson Service Company and James P. Duffy
United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. and James P. Duffy.
Cases Nos. 7-CA-1709,7-CA-1710,7-CA-1784,7-CA-1785,7-CA-
17867 7-CA-1787, 7-CA-1788, 7-CA-1799, and 7-CA-1793. July
31,1961
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On March 31, 1960, the Board issued its original decision 1_ in the
above-entitled proceeding , finding that two Employer Associations and
a number of individual employers had interfered with the internal
affairs of United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO, by permitting supervisors to hold union office, vote in
union elections , and engage in negotiations with the Respondent Em-
ployer Associations on behalf of the Union, in violation of Section
8(a) (2) and ( 1) of the Act.
1 Detroit Association of Plumbing Contractors, 126 NLRB 1381.
132 NLRB No. 40.