Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 24, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 598 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the appropriate unit covered by the
certification of District No. 6, International Association of Machin-
ists , AFL-CIO, in Case No. 3-RC-1164, be, and it hereby is, clarified
so as to include the following :
(a) Those employees now classified in department 12, who are to
be transferred from the machine shop to the special grinding
building to perform the same work as they are now doing in the
machine shop.
(b) Those employees now classified in department 12, who are to
be transferred from the machine shop to the special bushing
manufacture and grinding building to perform the same work as
they are now doing in the machine shop.
Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated I and International Asso-
ciation of Machinists , Ranger District No. 49, Petitioner. Case
No. 28-RC-1233. December 24, 1964
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 Hearing Officer
J. W. Cherry. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 3 finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
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 Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons.
The Employer is an .Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business in Chicago, Illinois. It is engaged in the distribution of
merchandise throughout the United States through a system of retail,
mail-order, and catalog stores. The subject case concerns only the
retail store in Thomas Mall, Phoenix, Arizona.
1 As amended at the hearing.
3 After the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director issued an order trans-
ferring this case to the Board for decision.
3 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 Fanning and Brown].
150 NLRB No. 56.
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INCORPORATED 599
The Petitioner seeks to represent, as a departmental unit, the service
department employees of the automotive service center 4 of the
Employer's Thomas Mall store. The Employer contends that only a
storewide unit is appropriate.
The Employer's Thomas Mall operations consist of a retail store
and an automotive service center. The automotive service center is
housed in a separate building about one.block from the retail store 5
and is divided into a sales floor and a service department with a
small cashier's office off the service department floor.
The Employer has approximately 300 employees at its Thomas
Mall operations of whom approximately 39 are supervisors. There
are approximately 32 employees in the automotive service center of
whom approximately 21, including 1 supervisor, are employed in
the service department. Only the employees in the service depart-
ment of the automotive service center are involved in this proceeding.
The Petitioner would include the following automotive service
center employees in its requested departmental unit:
1. Approximately five mechanics. These mechanics install air-
conditioners, transmissions, engines, and any parts sold in the auto
accessories store. The Employer states that these are skilled employ-
ees. Although the Employer may hire inexperienced men, they are
not accorded the status of mechanics until they have gone through
the Employer's formal training program.
2. Four gas island attendants. As the name indicates, these
employees sell gasoline to customers. They also lubricate automo-
biles when they are not busy selling gasoline.
3. Two seat cover installers. These employees install seat covers
in customers' automobiles.
4. One stockman. The record is silent as to the duties of this
employee. He is a regular part-time employee and works only in
the automotive service center.
5. An unknown number6 of tire mounters. These employees
mount tires and also lubricate automobiles when they are not busy.
The Petitioner would exclude the following automotive service
center employees :
1. Four salesmen . These employees sell tires and automobile
accessories . They are the only employees in the automotive service
center who are on a commission basis. The Employer states that
these salesmen do stockwork (arrange their stock to get ready for
the next day's sales ) every day but that it is not the same stockwork
done by the stockman.
' While the Petitioner-requested unit is expressed in terms of certain employees of the
automotive service center , in effect it has requested all employees of the service department.
5 The Employer contends that this separation is required by a city safety ordinance.
When asked how many tire mounters were employed in the automotive service center,
the Employer replied , "Well , I couldn't answer that exactly."
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Two cashiers. These employees work in the small office adja-
cent to the service floor and accept payment for work performed on
customers' automobiles. They also process shop cards that are pre-
sented to them by their supervisor. One of these employees is a
regular part-time employee and works only in the automotive service
center.
As stated earlier, the automotive service center is divided into a
sales floor and a service department. The sales floor is further
divided into a tires sales department and automobile appliances sales
department. From the record it appears that all of the requested
employees work in the service department,? while the excluded
employees work either on the sales floor or in the cashier's office.
The requested employees in the automotive service center wear uni-
forms while the excluded employees do not.
There is no evidence of any interchange of service department em-
ployees with other employees nor is there evidence of employee inter-
change within the automotive service center. The Employer stated
that the part-time cashier in the automotive service center was trans-
ferred from the main retail store. The Employer also stated, how-
ever, that no employees have been transferred from the automotive
service center to the main retail store.
Each of the departments in the automotive service center is super-
vised by a different department manager. The Employer states,
however, that each department manager may supervise employees of
any of the other departments in the automotive service center. These
department managers all report to the operating manager, who in
turn reports to the store manager.
It is true that there are some factors which would justify the
storewide unit contended for by the Employer. Thus, all employees
at the Employer's Thomas Mall operations enjoy the same conditions
of work and employee benefits. Furthermore, a storewide or overall
unit is presumptively appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.8
However, Section 9 (b) of the Act not only empowers the Board to
decide in each case "the unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining," but also directs it to make appropriate unit
determinations which will "assure to employees the fullest freedom
in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act," i.e., the rights of
self-organization and collective bargaining. In effectuating this man-
7 It is not clear where the stockman works. However, it would seem reasonable to
assume that there would be stockwork in both the service department and on the,
sales floor. -
8 See Section 9(b), National Labor Relations Act, Series 8, as amended . See also
J. W. Mays, Inc., 147 NLRB 968; Polk Brothers,- Inc., 128 NLRB 330;
Bullock's In-
corporated, d/b/a I. Magnin & Company, etc., 119 NLRB 642, 643; Western Electric
Company, Incorporated , 98 NLRB 1018 , 1032 ; May Department Stores Company, Kauf-
-mann Division, 97 NLRB 1007 , 1008. 1
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INCORPORATED - 601
date, the Board has recently reemphasized that the Act does not
compel labor organizations to seek representation in the most com-
prehensive grouping of employees unless such grouping constitutes
the only appropriate units Although a unit consisting of all em-
ployees of the. Employer at its Thomas Mall operations may be
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, there is no
bargaining history covering such a unit. In such circumstances, the
Board has held that the appropriateness of an overall unit does not
establish that a smaller unit is inappropriate.10 Thus, the issue here
is simply whether a unit consisting of only employees of the service
department is appropriate in the circumstances of this case and not
whether another unit consisting of all employees employed in the
Employer's Thomas Mall operations or all employees employed in
the automotive service center would also be appropriate, more appro-
priate, or most appropriate.
Under all the circumstances of this case, it is our opinion that the
service deR,artment is sufficiently homogeneous, identifiable, and dis-
tinct from the other departments to warrant a finding that the
employees constitute a separate appropriate unit. In view of the
fact that they exercise different skills, have separate supervision,
work in an area different from the other employees, wear uniforms
which set them apart, and perform no selling function, we find that
the employees sought herein have a mutuality of interests not shared
by other employees which is sufficient to justify their establishment as
a separate bargaining unit, and which "will assure to [them] the
fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by [the] Act." 11
We also note that no labor organization seeks to represent these
employees in a broader unit. Accordingly, 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 employed in the service department of the automo-
tive service center of the Employer's Thomas Mall, Phoenix, Arizona,
e Bagdad Copper Company, 144 NLRB 1496; P. Ballantine 4 Sons, 141 NLRB 1103,
See also F . W. Woolworth Company, 144 NLRB 307; Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., a Wholly-
Owned Subsidiary of Bell Industries, Inc., 139 NLRB 629; Sav-On Drugs, Inc., 138
NLRB 1032; Quaker City Life Insurance Company, 134 NLRB 960, enfd. on this point
319 F. 2d 690 (C A. 4).
1o Bagdad Copper Company , supra, footnote 9; P. Ballantine & Sons, supra, footnote 9;
Dixie Belle Mills , Inc., etc., supra, footnote 9.
11 We distinguish our, holding here from Montgomery Ward & Company, Incorporated,
78 NLRB 1070, where the Board refused to grant a separate unit of filling station at-
tendants , drivers, greasers , and tiremen employed at the filling station and tire store of
the employer ' s retail store on the grounds that the requested employees were not a skilled
craft group and because of the close relationship of their work to that of the sales clerks
at the service station and the similarity of the wages , hours, and working conditions of
all the employer 's retail store employees . In the instant case, there is a nucleus of craft
employees ( the mechanics ) and the record, moreover , reveals the absence of any close
relationship between the work of the requested employees and any other group of em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its Thomas Mall operations.
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations , including mechanics, tire mounters , seat cover installers,
stockmen,12 and gas island attendants; excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, cashiers, salesmen, watchmen, guards, and
supervisors , as defined by the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
12 As it is not clear from the record whether the requested stockman actually works
in the service department , we shall permit him to vote subject to challenge.
Gainesville Publishing Company, A Division of Cowles Maga-
zines and Broadcasting, Inc. and Robert Lamar Lee and Dorus
E. Norwood and Gainesville Typographical Union , No. 911,
International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO
Gainesville Publishing Company, A Division of Cowles Maga-
zines and Broadcasting, Inc. and Rosemary L. Hertel and
William C. Strawn and Gainesville Typographical Union, No.
911, International Typographical Union , AFL-CIO and Rich-
ard P. Arnold and Preston E. Dennington and Raymond A.
Glass. Cases Nos. 12-CA-2680-1, 12-CA-2680-2, 12-CA-2680-3,
12-CA-2737-1, 12-CA-2737-2, 12-CA-2737-3, 12-CA-2737-4, 12-
CA-2737-5, and 12-CA-2737-6. December 28, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 29, 1964, Trial Examiner Paul Bisgyer issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
a supporting brief. The General Counsel and the Charging Union
filed no exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
entire record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision
150 NLRB No. 60.