National Shirt Shops of Florida, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 924 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director indicates, did they possess any other powers or authority by
virtue of their relationship to the president which might have a
restraining influence upon the employees. I do not believe the mere
fact that relatives of the Employer's president participated in the
election as observers, standing alone, created an atmosphere contrary
to that required for an impartial election or in any way impaired the
secrecy of the ballot. Thereafter, I cannot agree with the action taken
by my colleagues in this matter.
Regarding the alleged electioneering by Keith Marx, the Regional
Director in his report points out that at the joint conference where
details of the election were arranged, the field examiner suggested, and
all parties agreed, that each of the parties have two observers, one of
whom would walk through the plant releasing employees to vote; that
the Petitioner's observers, who stated that they did not receive instruc-
tions as to the arrangements, as well as the Board agent, were advised
by one of the Employer's observers that Keith Marx was to go through
the plant releasing the voters, and that the Petitioner's observers did
not raise any objections. As there was no evidence that Marx had
any other purpose in checking the list of employees than to ascertain
that all eligible voters were released to vote, that he learned if they,
in fact, voted, or that his conduct tended to interfere with the em-
ployees' free choice of a bargaining representative, I am convinced, as
was the Regional Director, that this activity likewise affords no
satisfactory basis for setting aside the election in this case.
In view of the foregoing, I would adopt the Regional Director's
recommendations and dismiss the petition.
MEMBER HousTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.
NATIONAL SHIRT SHOPS OF FLORIDA, INC. AND NATIONAL SHIRT SHOPS
OF MIAMI, INC. and DEPARTMENT AND SPECIALTY S'1'oRl,: E-,11'ioyri.:s
UNION, LOCAL No. 1666, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL AssoorATION,
A. F: of L., PETITIONER. Case No.1b-RC-1595. December 29, 1951
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 Jerald B. Siiidler,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.1
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's uuotioais to disiniss the petition
on the grounds (1) that the Petitioner had not complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of
the Act, and ( 2) that the Employer was not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
97 NLRB No. 99.
NATIONAL SHIRT SHOPS OF FLORIDA, INC. 925
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 Herzog and Members Reynolds and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed
because it is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
The petition in this case seeks a unit consisting of certain employees
in a store at 156 East Flagler Street, and another store at 33 East
Flagler Street, both in Miami, Florida. The store at 156 East
Flagler is operated by National Shirt Shops of Florida, Inc., and the
store at 33 East Flagler is operated by National Shirt Shops of Miami,
Inc. All the stock of the latter corporation is owned by the former.
All the stock of the former corporation is in turn owned by National
Shirt Shops of Delaware, Inc., which has its principal office in New
York City, and which owns all the stock of 103 subsidiary corporations
throughout the country, each of which operates a retail store.
The two local corporations involved in this case and the parent
corporation in New York City have common officers. The parent cor-
poration controls the operations of the two local corporations through
still another subsidiary, National Shirt Shops, Inc., which shares
the offices of the parent corporation in New York City, and which
acts generally as purchasing and servicing agent for all the other
subsidiaries, supervising their operations through area district man-
agers. Changes in wages and other conditions of employment are
subject to the approval of the district managers, and the president
of the parent corporation. Both the stores involved in this case are
assigned to the same district manager. Any profits resulting from
the operations of the two stores are ultimately received by the parent
corporation.
Under these circumstances, we find that National Shirt Shops of
Florida, Inc., and National Shirt Shops of Miami, Inc., are integral
parts of a multistate enterprise. We find also that these two corpora-
tions are engaged in commerce 2 and that it would effectuate the
policies of the Act to assent jurisdiction in this case.3
We find further, in view of the common ownership of the two cor-
porations involved in this case, and in view of the common control
Act. As to (1), the question of compliance is a matter for administrative determination,
not litigable at the hearing B%rounr. ham Casket Company, 92 NLRB 573. As the Board
is administratively satisfied that the Petitioner is in compliance with the filing requiiements
of the Act , the motion to dismiss on the ground of noncompliance is accordingly denied.
The motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds is denied for the reasons stated in the text.
As the record in this case adequately presents the issues and contentions of the parties,
the Employer's request for oral argument is denied.
2 It was stipulated at the hearing that during 1950 National Shirt Shops of Florida, Inc
purchased outside the State merchandise in the value of $227 ,800, and National Shirt
Shops of Miami, Inc., during the same period , purchased outside the State merchandise
in the value of $116,764.
1 The Borden Company , 91 NLRB 628
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of their operations and labor policies by the parent corporation
through the district manager, that the two corporations constitute a
single employer within the meaning of the Act.'
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
-Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All sales persons, tailors, porters, stockmen, and cashiers at the
Miami, Florida, stores of the Employer, excluding managers, assistant
managers, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and super-
visors .5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 No contention to the contrary was made at the hearing in this case . See American
Relay and Controls , Inc., 81 NLRB 178.
5 Except for the exclusion of assistant managers , the above unit description conforms
to that sought by the Petitioner. The Employer made no objection to the unit sought by
the Petitioner.
The record shows that the store manager has authority to hire and discharge employees,
but that he usually consults the assistant manager before exercising this authority ; that
the assistant manager has authority to discipline employees and effectively to recommend
changes in their status ; that he acts for the store manager in his absence . In view of
the foregoing, and upon the entire record , we find that the assistant manager is a
supervisor and may not be included in the unit.
THE BRODERICK COMPANY (HEADER-PRESS DIVISION) and UNITED
STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC-
495. December 29, 1951
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 William G. Wilkerson, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Herzog and Members Reynolds and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :1
1 The request of the Petitioner and the Employer for oral argument is hereby denied
because the record and the briefs , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
97 NLRB No. 117.