Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 547 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INC 547
Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated and Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 87, Lodge
No. 1309, Petitioner . Case 20-RC-13232
June 30, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND WALTHER
On January 23, 1976, the Regional Director for
Region 20 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding in which she
found appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit lim-
ited to tire mounters and mechanics employed in the
auto service center at the Employer's 5740 N. Black-
stone, Fresno, California, retail store. Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National La-
bor Relations Act, Series 8, as amended, the Employ-
er filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director's decision on the ground, inter aka, that in
failing to find that only an overall unit of auto ser-
vice center employees is appropriate, she departed
from officially reported Board precedent.
By telegraphic order dated February 25, 1976, the
Board granted the request for review and stayed the
election pending decision on review.
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 considered the entire record in this
proceeding with respect to the issue under review and
makes the following findings:
The Employer is engaged in the operation of a re-
tail department store and an auto service center at its
5740 N. Blackstone, Fresno, California, location. The
function of the auto service center is to sell and in-
stall automotive parts and accessories and to perform
basic auto services and repairs. The center consists of
an automotive sales area located in the northeast cor-
ner of the sales floor of the retail department store,
and an auto service shop which is attached to the
main store. The service shop is accessible through a
double door leading to the automotive sales area and
through two large garage doors leading to the park-
ing lot. The service shop itself contains stalls, in
which auto repairs and installations are performed,
and a mezzanine storage area, in which tires and
auto accessories, as well as other retail store mer-
chandise, are stored.
Essentially, the Regional Director found appropri-
ate the Petitioner's requested unit limited to those
employees employed in the service shop as distin-
guished from those employees engaged in the sale of
automotive merchandise. As Indicated, the Employer
contended that the smallest appropriate unit herein is
an overall unit of auto service center employees.
Thus, it would include in the unit the automotive
salesmen, a detail clerk and a parts employee; also a
stock helper whose duties and unit placement were
not discussed by the Regional Director.
For the following reasons, we shall affirm the Re-
gional Director's decision, except we shall exclude
the stock helper from the unit found appropriate.
The record discloses that the auto service center is
headed by an auto service manager, Abrahamson,
who supervises the three tire mounters and six me-
chanics, and an automotive department manager,
Heidbrecht, who supervises the approximately five
automotive salesmen and a parts employee. Abra-
hamson and Heidbrecht jointly supervise the detail
clerk. Also employed at the auto service center is an
assistant auto service manager who reports to Abra-
hamson and a stock helper who is supervised by the
warehouse department manager.
The record discloses that the mechanics and tire
mounters perform their repair and installation duties
exclusively in the service shop of the auto service
center. They rarely, if ever, enter the sales floor of the
center and, as they are not assigned a sales number,
do not sell parts or supplies to customers. Rather,
their selling duties appear to be limited to referring a
customer to an automotive salesman. In addition,
tire mounters and mechanics cannot write up service
orders.
Mechanics and tire mounters, unlike other auto
service center employees, are skilled or knowledgable
in the performance of installations and mechanical
work on automobiles. Several of the mechanics are
licensed by the State of California. Mechanics are
paid an hourly wage plus a commission of 15 percent
of all labor billings over 150 percent of their re-
spective weekly wages. Tire mounters are paid on an
hourly basis. Mechanics and tire mounters use a sep-
arate timeclock I and wear uniforms which are differ-
ent from those worn by other store employees.
The primary function of the automotive salesmen
is to sell automotive merchandise I to customers in
the automotive sales area of the retail store.' Howev-
1 The record reveals that the timeclock has been broken for some time
and the tire mounters and mechanics presently fill out their own timecards
2 The automotive salesmen are also empowered to "ring up" sales for
merchandise from other departments in the retail store, as are all retail store
selling employees
3 While the record is not entirely clear on this point, it appears that the
Employer has, in the past, intermittently stationed an automotive salesman
in the service shop area to make "add on" sales to customers with autos
Continued
225 NLRB No. 71
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
er, in the course of performing their selling duties,
they take work orders to the service shop, escort cus-
tomers there who wish to inspect their automobiles,
and check on the availability of merchandise, espe-
cially during sales. The automotive salesmen are not
skilled or knowledgable in performing repairs on au-
tomobiles and they do not perform any mechanical
work. While the record discloses a limited number of
instances when automotive salesmen have mounted
tires, or even installed batteries, it is clear that such
activities are solely confined to emergency situations.
It appears that the automotive salesmen are paid on
a commission basis. They do not use a timeclock
and, unlike the tire mounters and mechanics, wear
business attire while at work.
The parts department is presently comprised of a
detail clerk 4 and an individual referred to as a parts
employee. The parts department itself is located ad-
jacent to the sales floor, separated from the latter by
a rail. A parts counter is readily accessible to the
customers of the store. There is also a window con-
necting the parts storage area with the service shop
where mechanics and tire mounters obtain the parts
which are necessary for the performance of their du-
ties. The parts department employees determine
which parts are in stock, order merchandise, and dis-
tribute the parts to mechanics and tire mounters. The
detail clerk also records the labor output of the me-
chanics. Both parts department employees, unlike
tire mounters and mechanics, write up service orders
and sell parts to customers coming into the store. In
this regard, it appears from the record that the parts
department employees must meet certain sales quo-
tas and, in fact, perform selling duties on the sales
floor itself. If either of the parts department employ-
ees is absent , his job is performed by a salesman or
on occasion by the assistant auto service manager.
Parts department employees are paid on an hourly
basis.
The record also reveals that there is a stock helper
who is permanently assigned to the auto service cen-
ter. As indicated, he is supervised by the warehouse
department manager. The stock helper receives auto-
motive and nonautomotive merchandise, signs bills
of lading, and transports the merchandise to the mez-
zanine storage area of the service shop. He is some-
times assisted by a tire mounter or a mechanic, and it
appears that the latter employee substitutes for him
in his absence. The stock helper is hourly paid; the
already in the service shop It is not clear on this record that there was a
back shop salesman for the 3 months prior to the heating it does appear,
however, that the assistant service manager was performing this function at
least temporarily at the time of the hearing
4 The payroll shows the salary of the detail clerk in charge to be on an
equal basis to that of the automotive accessories department and the service
shop
minimum rate of pay for his classification is 90 cents
per hour less than that received by the tire mounters.
Upon the foregoing, we find, in agreement with
the Regional Director, that a unit limited to the auto
service employees of the auto service center is appro-
priate herein.' While there are factors here present
which would render appropriate an overall auto ser-
vice center unit, other factors, also present here, per-
suade us that the unit sought by the Petitioner is an
appropriate unit.6 Thus, it is significant that the tire
mounters and mechanics are separately supervised
by the auto service manager; their duties are for the
most part limited to performing manual work on au-
tomobiles, requiring varying degrees of skill; and
their duties are confined to an area which is separate
from the automotive sales area of the retail store. The
function of the automotive salesmen, on the other
hand, is basically limited to selling automotive mer-
chandise on the sales floor of the retail store. They
are not knowledgable in auto repair skills and their
duties are considerably different from and not inter-
changeable with those of the mechanics and tire
mounters. We note also that there is no bargaining
history at this location, nor is there any other union
seeking to represent these employees as part of a
broader unit.
We also find that the functions of the parts depart-
ment employees are more closely related to those
performed by the automotive salesmen than to the
functions performed by the employees in the request-
ed unit. Thus, despite the facts that the detail clerk is
partially supervised by the auto service manager and
both department employees supply parts to the me-
chanics and tire mounters, it is clear that both of
these employees are engaged in the sale of automo-
tive merchandise to customers and perform some of
their selling duties on the sales floor of the auto ser-
vice center. Accordingly, we shall affirm the Region-
al Director's decision to exclude them from the unit.
Finally, on the basis of the record before us, we
find that the stock helper is properly excluded from
the unit limited to auto service employees. Although
he is permanently stationed at the auto service center
and from time to time is assisted by service center
5 See J C Penney Company Store No 1345, Honolulu, Hawaii, 196 NLRB
446 (1972), and J C Penney Company, Inc Store Number 1302, 196 NLRB
708 (1972)
6 We view as distinguishable the cases relied on by the Employer in sup-
port of its contention that only an overall unit of auto service center em-
ployees is appropriate In Sears, Roebuck and Co, 182 NLRB 609 (1970), the
mechanics and operators, sought to be included , were substantially engaged
in selling functions In addition, a majority of the automotive salesmen and
certain tire salesmen , sought to be excluded , were located on the service
floor at any given time and, consequently , a substantial majority of selling
activities occurred there Similarly , in Sears, Roebuck and Co, 184 NLRB
343 (1970), installers and partsmen, sought to be included, engaged in sell-
ing duties, and the salesmen , sought to be excluded , often assisted the instal-
lers in performing installation work Further , there was evidence of consid-
erable crossover supervision between included and excluded employees
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INC.
employees, it is clear that he performs typical ware-
house functions, is supervised by the warehouse de-
partment manager, and is paid an hourly rate com-
mensurate with that received by other warehouse
employees. Therefore, we shall exclude him from the
unit.
Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the
549
Regional Director in order that she may conduct an
election in the unit found appropriate herein, pur-
suant to her Decision and Direction of Election, ex-
cept that the payroll period for determining eligibility
shall be that ending immediately before the date of
issuance of this Decision on Review. [Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]