Robert Hall Clothes, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1096 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
7. By acting as the representative of its member respondents in the commission
of the above violations of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act, Respondent Pine
Industrial Relations Committee , Inc., has likewise engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
9. Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor. practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of. the Act by failing to bargain in good faith concerning
the provisions of a contract.
10. Respondents Red Blanket , Tite Knot, Ponderosa , and Brooks-Scanlon, have
not discriminated with respect to the tenure of employment of employees and have
not thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
( 3) and (1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Robert Hall Clothes , Inc.' and Retail Clerks Union Local 1222-A,
affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner
Robert Hall Clothes, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union Local No. 137,
affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Cases - Nos. 01-RC-4684 and 21-RC-4738.
August 20, 1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Fred W. Davis,
hearing 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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and
Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-4684 seeks to represent a unit of
retail sales employees at the Employer's two stores in, San Diego,
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Petitioner excepted to the hearing officer's rejection of its offer of proof relating
to the validity of the contract advanced by the Employer and the Intervenor as a bar here-
in. However , we need not pass upon the hearing officer's ruling in this instance , relating
to the contract-bar issue , in view of our dismissal of the petitions on other grounds, here-
inafter discussed.
118 NLRB No. 147.
ROBERT HALL CLOTHES, INC. 1097
California. The Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-4738 seeks a unit of
similar employees at the Employer's Bakersfield, California, store.
The Employer and the Intervenor, Local 55-D, Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, moved to dismiss the petitions on
the grounds that (1) a contract bar exists, and (2) the requested units
are inappropriate. To support the latter ground, they contend that
the only appropriate unit consists of all retail sales employees in the
Employer's 18 stores in the southern California area. We agree with
this contention.
The Employer operates a chain of 248 retail clothing stores through-
out the United States. It has headquarters in New York City, but,
for administrative purposes, it operates most of its stores through
regional managers in four regional subdivisions : eastern, midwestern,
central States, and southern California. The southern California
division was established in the early part of 1956. At that time, in
mid-February 1956, the Employer opened 12 stores in 12 separate
communities within the Los Angeles, California, greater metropolitan
area, as well as a regional office at Culver City, California. Shortly
thereafter, on February 24, 1956, the Employer entered into a contract
with the Intervenor covering the retail sales employees in these 12
stores. Such contract also provided that it would cover "other such
stores as the Employer may from time to time open in the southern
California area." At various times thereafter, the Employer opened
6 additional clothing stores in the southern California area : 3 located
in greater Los Angeles, and the other 3 in San Diego and Bakersfield,
the stores directly involved herein. These six additional stores were
immediately included within the coverage of the area contract.
San Diego is about 120 miles south and Bakersfield 110 miles north
of Los Angeles. However, all of the 18 stores of the Employer in
southern California, including the 3 in San Diego and Bakersfield, are
identical in architectural design and in interior arrangement. They
all offer for sale the same lines of apparel, which, because of the
climate and clothing habits and tastes in the area, differ substantially
from the lines presented in the Employer's stores in other parts of
the country. Indeed, because of this fact, the Employer obtains most
of its merchandise for sale in the southern California stores from
manufacturers in Los Angeles.
The staff at the Culver City regional office includes, besides the
regional manager, a merchandising manager, an auditor, and two
district managers. The regional manager, in addition to his overall re-
sponsibilities, handles the merchandising of men's apparel for all 18
stores in the area. He makes frequent trips to all the stores in the
area. The mechandising manager specializes in the merchandising of
women's apparel for the area stores. The 2 district managers divide
the 18 stores in the area between them, and each supervises merchan-
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dise inventories and sales for the stores in his district. The auditor
performs the accounting function for all 18 stores in the area.
Many aspects of the operations of these 18 stores are uniform for
all. Merchandise, which is shipped directly to the stores from the
manufacturer, is uniformly priced in all the stores. Price tags are
made up at the regional office and sent to the stores for attachment
to the merchandise. The district managers transfer merchandise
from store to store as need arises. Sales advertising for all stores is
centrally handled. Employee classifications are the same in each store.
Training policy for store employees is centrally administered. Per-
sonnel policy is formulated by the regional manager and uniformly
applied in each store in the area. Each store has a manager and
assistant manager. Both have authority to hire, within the budgetary
limitations. They may effect discharges for theft or intoxication,
but discharges for any other reason must be approved by the regional
manager. Grievances also are handled by the regional manager,
pursuant to existing contractual provisions. Although the store man-
agers pay wages out of cash receipts each week, wage rates are uniform,
wage budgets are centrally determined, and deficiencies in local pay-
rolls are made up by the regional office. Hours of employment are
the same in all 18 stores. Layoffs are centrally determined, and when
layoffs have occurred, areawide seniority has governed. There have
been 21 voluntary transfers of nonsupervisory sales employees from
one store in the area to another, either to avoid layoff or for personal
reasons.
The Petitioners contend in their brief that employees in the two re-
quested units are entitled to self-determination elections, especially in
view of the geographical separation of the San Diego and Bakersfield
stores from the stores in the greater Los Angeles area. The Board has
held, in cases involving chains of retail stores, that, absent unusual cir-
cumstances, the appropriate bargaining unit should embrace employees
of all stores located within an employer's administrative division or
geographical area 3 There are no unusual circumstances in the instant
case. It is also clear from the facts set forth above, and the entire
record in these cases, that the operations of the Employer's 18 stores
within the southern California area are centralized to a very high
degree and that a strong community of interests exists among
employees of all the stores in the area. Moreover, it is evident that
the Intervenor has been recognized by the Employer as the representa-
tive of its retail sales employees in an areawide unit and is interested
in continuing such representation 4 These factors, lead us to the
8 Father f Son Shoe Stores, Inc., 117 NLRB 1479 ; and cases cited therein.
4 It also appears that a sister local of the Intervenor has a contract with the Employer
covering alteration department employees at all of the 1.8 stores in the southern California
area.
STANDARD OIL COMPANY 1099
conclusion that, despite the geographical separation which exists
between the stores in San Diego and Bakersfield and those in greater
Los Angeles, the only appropriate unit for the employees involved is
one encompassing the retail sales employees of all the Employer's
stores in its southern California division 5 In the circumstances, as
the Petitioners' unit requests are too narrow' in scope, we shall grant
the motions of the Employer and the Intervenor to dismiss the
petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
5 Father & Son Shoe Stores, Inc., supra; Food Fair Stores, Inc., 114 NLRB 521.
Standard Oil Company and Local 483, International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders , Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, AFL-CIO and Local 338, International Hod Carriers,'
Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO,
Petitioners . Cases Nos. 14-RC-3.118, 14-RC-3120, and 14-RC-
3121. August 20,1957
DECISION, DIRECTION OF ELECTION, AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
William F. Trent, hearing 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Employer, an Indiana corporation, is engaged in the produc-
tion, refining, and distribution of petroleum and related products
in various locations throughout the United States. Only its refin-
1 During the hearing, International Hod Carriers moved to withdraw the petition in
Case No. 14-RC-3121, on the ground of "loss of interest" among the employees they sought
to represent. The motion is hereby granted.
2 Central States Petroleum Union, Local 115, the Intervenor herein, intervened on the
basis of a contract covering the employees involved.
118 NLRB No. 148.