Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 1132 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated and General
Teamsters Local 439, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Petitioner . Case 20-RC-8338
April 14, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Albert Schneider, Hearing
Officer. Following the hearing, pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, this case was transferred to
the National Labor Relations Board for decision.
Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Employer and
the Petitioner, which have been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds no prejudicial
error. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board
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 jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the operation of a
retail department store in Stockton, California,
where it employs about 250-300 employees, equally
divided between selling and nonselling functions. It
also has a warehouse located on Minor Street some
7 miles distant, at which are employed a
warehouseman and a general clerk, as well as two
truckdrivers and helpers who spend their time either
at the warehouse, on deliveries, or shuttling between
the warehouse and the store. The Petitioner seeks a
unit of the store's 12-17 shipping and receiving
department employees classified as markers, pickup
boys, record clerks, and also the six
above-mentioned employees at the Minor Street
warehouse. Alternatively, the Petitioner seeks a unit
limited to the warehouse employees. The Employer
contends that only a unit of all nonselling employees
is appropriate. None of the Employer's employees is
now represented.
With respect to the store, the record shows that it
is a two-story building with selling areas on both
floors. The second floor, however, also contains a
number of nonselling departments, including
shipping and receiving. The store manager is
responsible for the Employer's overall operations.
Reporting directly to him are two merchandise
managers, to whom the various selling department
managers in turn report, and an operations manager
who is responsible for all nonselling functions. The
store's shipping and receiving department and the
warehouse are under the immediate supervision of a
single department manager, who reports directly to
the operations manager.
Merchandise is delivered to a dock area on the
store's first floor, unloaded by shipping and
receiving employees, and taken by them to a large
storage area in the shipping and receiving
department on the second floor. This storage area
opens onto the second floor selling area, and is
accessible to the first floor selling area by means of
an elevator and stairway. The merchandise is
marked and stored in this area by shipping and
receiving employees. When such merchandise is
needed in selling departments, it is either shuttled
there by shipping and receiving employees, at which
times they are under the supervision of the selling
department manager, or sales personnel go to the
storage area themselves and get the merchandise
after clearing the matter with the shipping and
receiving department and warehouse supervisor for
purposes of inventory control. Sales personnel also
visit the storage area to check the availability and
proper marking of their stock. Near the storage
area is an office in which 6-7 employees maintain
records. The Petitioner contends that two of such
employees spend the entire working day in
maintaining shipping and receiving records under
the shipping and receiving department and
warehouse supervisor, and therefore should be
included in the proposed primary unit. The store
manager, however testified, without contradiction,
that all of the employees in that office were under
the supervision of the merchandise manager, and
that all of them regularly interchanged between
keeping the records in question and other records
unrelated to shipping and receiving.
The store has central hiring and all employees
participate in common pension and profit-sharing
plans and are considered for wage increases in
accordance with a uniform policy.
It is clear from the record and briefs that the
petition is based on the theory that the unit sought
constitutes, or is equivalent to, a unit of
warehousing employees which is appropriate under
A. Harris & Co., 116 NLRB 1628, wherein the
Board approved a warehousing unit (1)
geographically separated from retail store
operations, (2) under separate supervision, and (3)
not substantially integrated with other store
181 NLRB No. 179
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INC.
functions.
In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded that
the Petitioner's requested unit of warehouse
employees, including truckdrivers at the Employer's
Minor Street warehouse and all shipping and
receiving employees at the Employer's retail store is
not the type of warehouse unit contemplated in A.
Harris & Co., supra. Accordingly, we find this
requested unit to be inappropriate and shall dismiss
the petition insofar as it requests a separate unit of
employees performing warehouse functions at both
the main store and Minor Street warehouse.'
The Petitioner, however, seeks in the alternative a
unit of employees performing warehouse functions
at the Minor Street warehouse.
The record indicates that while warehousing
functions are carried on at both the main retail store
and at the warehouse under the general direction of
an operating superintendent, the employees at the
warehouse are under the immediate supervision of a
warehouse manager. The employees working at the
warehouse report directly there, ring in and out on a
separate clock, and receive their pay there.
Furthermore, there appears to be little if any
interchange between sales personnel at the main
store and workers stationed at the warehouse. Such
facts indicate that there is a geographic and
supervisory separateness between the warehouse and
main store employees, as well as a lack of basic
integration with respect to the duties performed.
Under such circumstances the Board has held that
the standards enunciated in A. Harris, supra, have
been met, despite the fact that employees were
'Sears. Roebuck & Co. 180 NLRB No 132
1133
carrying out warehouse functions at locations other
than the warehouse Sears, Roebuck & Co., 151
NLRB 1356. In addition to geographic and
supervisory separateness and lack of basic
integration, we find that the primary activity at the
Minor Street warehouse, storage and delivery of
merchandise, has a degree of functional difference
and autonomy within the overall complex of the
Employer's retail operations demonstrating a
community of interest among these warehouse
employees sufficient to warrant placing them in a
separate unit. Thus, considering all the factors
involved in this case we have concluded that the
following employees constitute a separate,
identifiable unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All employees engaged in warehouse operations at
the Employer's Minor Street warehouse, Stockton,
California, excluding office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election' omitted from publication.]
'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Company.
394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 15 within 7
days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No
extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this
requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed