Schick Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 1378 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of SCHICK SERVICE , INC.,' EMPLOYER and LOCAL UNION
11, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL,
PETITIONER
Case No. 21-RC-1081.-Decided March, 202, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Bertram M.
Landesman, 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 National Labor
Relations 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 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
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 Employer, with headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut,
maintains 37 branches in the principal cities of the Nation for the sale,
repair, and servicing of Schick shavers. Its 3 branches in California.
are located at Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego. The Peti-
tioner seeks to represent a single unit of all countermen, repairmen,
and shipping department employees at the Los Angeles branch, exclud-
ing office and clerical employees and supervisors. The Employer con-
tends that the proposed unit is inappropriate, and asserts that only the
following units may be appropriate: (a) Separate units for counter-
men, repairmen, and shipping department employees, respectively,
Nation-wide in scope; or (b) separate units for these employee classi-
fications coextensive with its branches in the State of California.
' The Employer's name is amended to conform to the record.
88 NLRB No. 244.
1378
SCHICK SERVICE, INC. 1379
There are nine employees in the proposed unit at the Los Angeles
branch consisting of two countermen, six repairmen, and one shipper.2
The countermen work in the front portion of the Employer's premises,
which is equivalent to a store, where they receive defective shavers
brought in by customers for repairs, and also sell new shavers. The
countermen inspect the shavers and may themselves make a minor ad-
justment if nothing more is required. If more extensive repairs are
indicated, the shavers are turned over with instructions as to the re-
quired work to the repairmen in a back room who make the necessary
repairs. When countermen are busy they are sometimes assisted by
repairmen. Repairmen also relieve countermen during lunch periods
and during their absences from work.3 The shipper also works in the
back room where he unpacks shavers mailed by customers to the branch
for repairs, tags them, and turns them over to the repairmen. Upon
completion of the repairs he packs the shavers and mails them back to
the customers. The shipper, who was formerly a repairman and coun-
terman,4 has also substituted for repairmen and countermen during
their absences. All these employees are hourly rated, and have the
same general working conditions and employee benefits. They are all
under a single branch supervisor. There is no history of bargaining
for these employees.5
Aside from the fact that the Employer maintains separate payroll
records for each of the employee classifications involved herein, no
cogent argument is advanced to support the contention that each of
these classifications should be represented in a separate unit. On the
other hand, the smallness of the branch, the integration of the Em-
ployer's operations within the branch, and the identical working con-
ditions, common supervision, and substantial interchange among the
employees of the proposed unit, abundantly demonstrate the propriety
of including these employees in a single unit.
In support of its contention that the unit should be either Nation-
wide or coextensive with its California branches, the Employer pro-
duced testimony to show that business operations, labor relations, and
personnel policies are uniform for all branches and are centrally con-
trolled from its Connecticut headquarters. The Employer also as-
serted that its policy is to facilitate transfers of employees between
branches as a means of providing advancement, and that there is ex-
2 These employees , together with the exclusions , represent the Employer 's total working
force at the branch.
' Countermen and repairmen have the same basic skills . The Employer ' s policy is to
promote repairmen to countermen.
4 This employee was transferred to his present position at his own request.
5 The only bargaining history pertaining to the Employer 's employees consists of repre-
sentation by Local 202 , IBEW, of repairmen in the San Francisco branch, from 1. 941 until
1948, when the Union was decertified in a Board proceeding ( Case No. 20-RD-19).
882191-51-88
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tensive employee interchange among the California branches. On
the other hand, the record shows that each branch is independently
managed by a supervisor, who has unlimited authority to hire and dis-
charge employees within the budgetary limits set by the Stamford of-
fice. The Los Angeles branch is approximately 125 miles from San
Diego, 425 from San Francisco, and even further removed from the
Employer's other branches. Moreover, there is no evidence of regular
interchange between the employees of the Los Angeles branch and
other branches 6 For these reasons, and because there is no history
of bargaining, we find that a unit limited to the employees of the Los
Angeles branch is appropriate.'
We find that all employees at the Employer's Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, branch, excluding office and clerical employees and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by Local Union 11, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL.
6 Since 1945 theie have been the following transfers of employees from the Los Angeles
branch to San Prancisco : One counterman was transferred to become a supervisor ; one
repairman was permanently transferred at her own request; one repairman was temporarily
transferred for a 6-week period to train employees. In addition, a counterman was
temporarily assigned for a 3-day period to the San Diego branch during the illness of the
lone employee at that branch.
7 Singer Sewing Machine Company, 87 NLRB 460; Burroughs Adding Machine Com-
pany, 81 NLRB 1239.