Rice-Stix Dry Goods Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 14, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 311 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of RICE-STIR DRY GOODS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 1,
AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 14-RC-11.-Decided July 14,1948.
Lewis, Rice, Tucker, Allen and Chubb, by Messrs. Robert T. Burch
and William F. Guffey, Jr., of St. Louis, Mo., for the Employer.
Messrs. Frank Jacobs and James Hartman, of St. Louis, Mo., for the
Petitioner.
Miss Emily Cronheim and Mr. Edward C. Brown, of St. Louis, Mo.,
for the Intervenor.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at St. Louis,
Missouri, on February 26, 1948, before Harry G. Carlson , hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Rice-Stix Dry Goods Company is a Missouri corporation engaged in
the manufacturing and wholesaling of dry goods in St. Louis, Missouri,
and other places. Only the St. Louis wholesale dry goods house is
involved in this proceeding.
During the past year the Employer received goods at its St. Louis
wholesale house valued in excess of $200,000, of which approximately
50 percent came from outside the State of Missouri. During the same
period, the Employer shipped goods from its St. Louis wholesale
house valued at more than $200,000, of which approximately 50 percent
was delivered to points outside the State.
' The Employee 's request for oral argument is hereby dewed , as the record and briefs
filed herein , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and positions of the parties
78 N. L It. B., No 37.
311
312 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.
United Distribution Workers, herein called the Intervenor, is an
unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.2
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of "all electrical workers,"
excluding all other employees and supervisors.3 The Intervenor con-
tends, and the Employer agrees, that the only appropriate unit is the
plant-wide unit, which the Intervenor's predecessor has represented
since 19414
The Employer's maintenance department is composed of approxi-
mately 53 employees superdised by a Building Engineer and several
assistants. Twelve of these are assigned to electrical maintenance
work. In this maintenance department there are, at one level, job
classifications such as carpenter, electrician, engineer, and furniture
finishers; at a lower level, maintenance workers, who are assigned to
make minor repairs under the direction of machinists and electricians;
and at a still lower level, maintenance helpers, who may be assigned
to perform manual tasks and to assist anyone else.
In the unit sought by the Petitioner, there are seven employees
classified as electricians, two as maintenance workers, and one as a
2 United Distribution Woikers is iecognized by the Employer as the successor to the St.
Louis Joint Council , United Retail , Wholesale & Department Store Union , CIO The St.
Louis Joint Council was served with notice of hearing but did not appear
8 The petition , before it was amended at the hearing , described the unit to include "all
electrical maintenance employees " Neither description is free of ambiguity , because of
the Employer ' s job -classifications and the nature of its operations There is one experienced
electrician who refuses to acknowledge the authority of the foreman , and he and his helper
receive their instructions directly from the Building Engineer or his assistant . It is not
clear from the record whether or not these two employees are included in the proposed unit
Our disposition of this case makes it unnecessary to resolve this question
4 The Employer and the Intervenor's predecessor have had collective bargaining contracts
since November 1941 The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their contract dated
August 21 , 1947, is a bar to this proceeding . That agreement, extending union iecogni-
tion and union security for 1 yeas, was made in order to take advantage of Section 102 of the
Act as amended, which provides that such contracts if made between the enacting date and
the effective (late of the Act shall not constitute an unfair labor practice This cent, act was
not intended as a complete bargaining contract or as a renewal of the existing contract, (lid
-not contain substantive terms with regard to conditions of employment , and is not such a
contract as would bar our consideiation of a question concerning representation Matter
.of Peoima Wholesale Liquor Distributors Association, et al , 74 N L R B 208
RICE-STIX DRY GOODS COMPANY 313
maintenance helper. One of the electricians is the working foreman,
who lays out job assignments for the others in the group, and who has
authority to make recommendations with regard to the promotion,
transfer, or discharge of employees. Of the other six electricians, five
were hired as maintenance workers or helpers, and, after 2 years or less,
were promoted to electricians. Two of these five had had a few months'
previous experience in electrical work. Thus, in the allegedly appro-
priate unit, there appear to be only two experienced electricians, one
of whom is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and five other
electricians who have a maximum of 2 years' experience. The Peti-
tioner ordinarily requires a 4-year apprenticeship before a person may
qualify as an electrician.
The electricians and their helpers work throughout the building,
repairing fixtures, installing conduits, and maintaining electrical ap-
pliances. When their work load becomes unduly heavy, as it has on
several occasions in the past, maintenance workers who normally do
painting, carpentry, or other work, are assigned to assist the electrical
crew. Conversely, if the electrical work is slack, some of the electri-
cians and their helpers may be assigned to other work. Such assign-
ments have not been frequent or of long duration. Estimates of the
proportion of time spent upon such non-electrical work varied from 5
to 25 percent.
A considerable portion of the Employer's electrical installation
work is done by outside contractors. The Employer's electricians
would be qualified to do some but not all of this work.
All the employees in the Employer's plant have the same hours, vaca-
tions, sick leave benefits, and group insurance. All employees in the
maintenance department have the same pay scales, and check in and
out and dress in the same locker room; and the seniority plan is applic-
able to the department as a whole.
From the foregoing facts, it appears that the maintenance depart-
ment is an integrated operating group with no clear demarcation along
craft lines. The electricians are, for the most part, not skilled crafts-
men; their work is not confined strictly to electrical work; nor is the
electrical work performed solely by electricians. Under these circum-
stances, particularly in view of the long and successful history of col-
lective bargaining on a plant-wide basis, we find no reason for setting
the electricians and their helpers apart from the remainder of the
employees.
As we have held that the bargaining unit sought by the Petitioner is
inappropriate for collective bargaining purposes, we find that no
question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of
'314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. We shall, therefore, dismiss the
petition.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in this proceeding, it is hereby ordered that the petition for investiga-
tion and certification of representatives of employees of Rice-Stilt Dry
Goods Company, St. Louis, Missouri, filed by Local No. 1, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.