Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 1031 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INC. 1031
Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated , Petitioner
and Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No.
414, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America.
Case 25-UC-42
March 24, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On September 10, 1971, the Petitioner filed a petition
for unit clarification, seeking to exclude from the cer-
tified unit of "employees employed at the Employer's
Warehouse located at 4033 North Clinton Street, Fort
Wayne, Indiana," seven employees who had been
physically transferred from this warehouse to the Em-
ployer's retail store located at 835 Northcrest, Fort
Wayne, Indiana.
On November 23, 1971, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Thomas M. Lucas for the purpose of
taking testimony with respect to the issues raised by
this petition. The parties appeared and participated at
the hearing. On December 1, 1971, the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 25 transferred the case to the National
Labor Relations Board. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed
a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing and finds that they are free from
prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds:
The Petitioner, Montgomery Ward & Co., Incor-
porated, is engaged in the' sale and distribution of mer-
chandise through two retail stores and a warehouse in
Fort Wayne, Indiana.
In 1965, the Union was certified as the representative
of employees employed at the Petitioner's warehouse
located at 4033 North Clinton Street, Fort Wayne,
Indiana. Thereafter, the parties entered into three
successive collective-bargaining agreements, including
the current one, which states in part that "the Union
is recognized by the Company as the representative of
all shipping, receiving, and warehousing employees,
service clerks, service prep employees and merchandise
prep employees employed at the Company's Fort
Wayne, Indiana retail store warehouse, but excluding
all other employees of the Company in Fort Wayne,
Indiana ... "
In December 1970, the Petitioner transferred eight
employees from its warehouse to its Northcrest retail
store. Prior to the transfer, these employees, classified
as markers, pro clerk, receiving clerk, and head
marker, received, unpacked, and marked the prices on
certain "soft line" merchandise at the warehouse.
These employees then repacked the merchandise so
that it could be transported to the Northcrest retail
store for storage and sale. The Petitioner,, in order to
eliminate this double handling of merchandise and
achieve an annual saving of $39,000, restructured its
Northcrest retail store and transferred these employees
and their equipment.
Following this relocation, the Petitioner refused to
recognize the Union as the representative of these em-
ployees. Thereafter, the Union filed a grievance protest-
ing this action. Since this grievance committee_ could
reach no majority decision, this issue was submitted for
arbitration. On July 8, 1971, Arbitrator James J. Wil-
lingham issued his decision, in which he found that the
Petitioner had violated the collective-bargaining agree-
ment covering the warehouse employees by its unilat-
eral discontinuance of recognition of these employees.
In the instant case, the Petitioner seeks to clarify the
unit by adding to the list of exclusions: "all employees
of the company working at retail stores of the company
in Fort Wayne, Indiana." The Petitioner contends that
it is not obligated to recognize the Union as the repre-
sentative of these transferred employees because the
unit certified by the Board was limited to employees
employed at the warehouse, and specifically excluded
any employees who were employed at the retail stores.
The Union contends that the arbitrator's award should
be honored by the Board.
We disagree with the Petitioner's contention. The
record shows that these employees continue to perform
the same functions at the retail store as they had prior
to their transfer from the warehouse. In addition, these
employees are under the same supervision as they were
at the warehouse. Based on these facts, we find that the
Petitioner cannot, by this reorganization, unilaterally
remove the transferred employees from the currently
recognized warehouse unit.' Accordingly, based on our
findings above, we shall dismiss the instant petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition for unit clarifi-
cation be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
I See McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company, 194 NLRB No 116;
S. D. Warren Co., 164 NLRB 489, Martin-Burns Sportables, Inc., 129
NLRB 364, Lapp Insulator Co, Inc, 150 NLRB 596.
195 NLRB No. 186