Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 28, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 992 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated and Ware-
house and Mail Order Employees Union Local No.
743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Petitioner . Case 13-RC-12451
October 28, 1971
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On June 7, 1971, Ross M. Madden, the Regional
Director for Region 13, issued his Decision and
Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding
in which he found appropriate a unit comprised of all
inside and outside service technicians of the Employ-
er's central service facility, located in Gary, Indiana,
including parts department service clerks, but exclud-
ing other categories of service clerks, porters, and the
shuttle driver. In so doing he broadened the Petition-
er's requested unit confined to the service technicians,
but rejected the Employer's contention that the unit
should include all service clerks, the porters, and the
shuttle driver. Thereafter, the Employer filed a timely
request for review of the Regional Director's Decision
on the ground that, in rejecting its unit contention, he
departed from officially reported precedent.
By telegraphic order dated June 30, 1971, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the request
for review and postponed the election pending
decision on review.
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 entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review, and
makes the following findings:
The Employer asserts that the Regional Director's
rejection of its unit contention is a departure from the
Board's unit finding in Sears, Roebuck & Co., 160
NLRB 1435. We agree.
The Sears case, like the instant one, involved a
request for a unit of outside and inside servicemen at
an appliance service facility operated in conjunction
with a retail department store. There, the Board found
a unit limited in scope to the service department to be
a functionally distinct departmental unit and includ-
I immediate supervisors of technicians and the immediate
supervisor of employees in the parts area report to the operating manager,
who together with the service manager provides immediate supervision for
all other employees of the facility
2 As the unit found appropriate herein is considerably larger than that
requested , the Petitioner is accorded a period of 10 days in which to submit
ed in the unit, in addition to the 80 service repairmen
sought, 7 parts employees and 25 service and parts
clerks on the basis that all worked under the same
supervision performing closely related functions and
shared a community of interest.
Here, as found by the Regional Director, the 46
service technicians-34 outside and 12 inside
technicians-are assisted in the service function by
some 9 employees working in the parts area, 30 service
clerks (dispatch, phone service, sales promotion
contract, accounting, and tracer clerks) in a large
open office area separated from the shops, 2 porters
(who clean the areas, fill parts orders, and assist the
technicians), and a shuttle driver (who drives to the
Employer's stores and returns with merchandise left
by customers for repair). All of these employees are
under an operating manager who reports to the
service manager.[ All the service clerks perform
clerical functions which are ancillary to the opera-
tions of the facility: receiving telephonic requests for
service, preparing work orders, dispatching techni-
cians, answering questions concerning the status of
repairs, soliciting service contracts by phone, and
many other clerical duties required in the processing
of work orders.
In view of the substantial similarity between the
facts of the instant case , as fully detailed by the
Regional Director, and those of the Sears case, we
find that the decision in that case is controlling herein.
We find therefore that the service clerks, the porters,
and the shuttle driver have a close community of
interest with the service technicians and parts employ-
ees as to require their inclusion in the unit.
The appropriate unit as modified herein is:
All inside and outside service technicians and all
service clerks, porters and shuttle drivers em-
ployed at the Employer's Central Service unit
located at 1700 West 35 St., Gary, Indiana,
excluding confidential employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
DIRECTION
Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Regional
Director for the purpose of conducting an election
pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as
modified herein,2 except that the payroll period for
determining eligibility shall be that immediately
preceding the date of issuance.3
the requisite showing of interest to support an election therein In the event
the Petitioner does not wish to proceed with an election herein, it may
withdraw its petition without prejudice by notice to the Regional Director
within 7 days from the date below
3 (Standard Direction of Election footnote citing Excelsior Underwear
Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman- Gordon Co, 394 U S 759.)
193 NLRB No. 148