Pomeroy's, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 633 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of POMEROY 'S, INC., EMPLOYER and RETAIL CLERKS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, A. F. OF L., LOCAL 1547 , PETITIONER
Case No. 4-R-°735.-Decided March 9,1948
Messrs. George B. Balmer and J. W. Coblentz, both of Reading, Pa.,
for the Employer.
Messrs. Clarence C. Mendelsohn and John T. Haletsky, both of
Reading, Pa, for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Reading,
Pennsylvania, on December 16, 1947, before Helen F. Humphrey,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer's
motion to dismisss the petition is granted for the reasons appearing
hereinafter.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER
Pomeroy's, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, operates retail depart-
ment stores throughout Pennsylvania. We are here concerned only
with the store at Reading, Pennsylvania. During 1946 the Employer
purchased goods for the Reading store valued in excess of $1,000,000,
of which 95 percent represented shipments from points outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the same period the Em-
ployer sold at its Reading store merchandise valued in excess of
$6,000,000, of which less than 1 percent represented shipments to points
outside the Commonwealth.
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel consisting
of the undersigned Board Members tHouston , Murdock , and Gray].
76 N. L. R. B., No. 96. - -
633
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all employees of the furni-
ture department, including salesmen and polishers, excluding buyers,
assistant buyers, and floor man. The Employer opposes the establish-
ment of a separate unit of these employees, contending that the appro-
priate unit should consist of all the selling employees in the store.
The furniture department, located on the fifth floor, is one of more
than 80 departments in the store. It is under' the supervision of a
buyer and an assistant buyer, who also supervise the rug department
and bedroom furniture department of the fourth floor. Bedroom
furniture is sold by employees of the fifth floor furniture department
or by employees of the rug department.
The furniture department is composed of four salesmen, two polish-
ers, and one floor man. The exclusion of the latter from the unit peti-
tioned for is unexplained. The polishers are paid a weekly salary,
but salesmen, like most of the salesmen throughout the store, are paid
on a straight commission basis. Commissions vary from 4 to 8 percent
throughout the store, depending on the article sold. Furniture sales-
men work on a 4 percent commission, and their earnings are among
the highest in the store. All the personnel of the furniture depart-
ment are hired through the general personnel office of the store and
no prior experience is required. After assignment to a department
by the personnel office, and training in that department, there is no
interchange of employees. Benefits and working conditions are the
same for employees in the furniture department as for other employees.
There is no history of collective bargaining among the selling em-
ployees of the Employer.2
The Petitioner apparently relies on the knowledge of stock which
it is desirable that a furniture salesman have, and also on the present
extent of employee organization, to support its unit contention. As
2 The Employer has recognized International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as the bargaining representative for its delivery
department . During 1947 the organizer for the Petitioner , acting as an organizer for
another local of the same international , attempted to organize the Employer's employees
on a store -wide basis During the same year an election was held by the Pennsylvania
Labor Relations Board at the Employer 's Harrisburg store. The unit there ,sought by a
local of the Retail Clerks International Association included all the selling employees of
the store.
POMEROY'S, INC. 635
the Petitioner admitted, however, all the salespeople must know their
stock. The Employer requires no special knowledge or experience
of employees it starts in the furniture department, and we find no
special skill to characterize the performance of their duties by em-
ployees in this department .3
The extent of employee organization is one of the factors to be
weighed in determining the appropriateness of a unit. But we con-
clude, in the light of the entire record, that the extent of employee
organization would actually be the controlling justification for find-
ing that the unit sought here is appropriate. The Act, as amended,
provides, however, that the extent to which the employees have organ-
ized shall not be controlling.' We therefore find that the unit sought
by the Petitioner is inappropriate, and will dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifi-
cation of representatives of employees of Pomeroy's, Inc., filed herein
by Retail Clerks International Association, A. F. of L., Local 1547,
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
7 This case is not analogous to cases cited in the brief of the Petitioner where tailors
in the alteration departments of large stores were found to comprise an appropriate unit
Moi cover, Matter of Carson Parse Scott cf Company, 03 N L R B. 1096, cited by the Peti-
tioner as a leading case, has now been overruled in Matter of Carson Parse Scott d Com-
pany, 75 N L R B , 1244
4 Section 9 (e) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act, 1947. Matter of Delaware Knitting Company, Inc., 75 N. L. R B. 205.