Sears, Roebuck and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1941

35 N.L.R.B. 1036 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of SEARS, ROEBUCK AND Co. and UNITED WHoLEsALE &
WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES OF NEW YORK, LOCAL 65, C. I. O.
Case No. R-2915.-Decided September .9,1941
Jurisdiction : general merchandising mail order business.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where no appropriate unit within
the scope of the petition ; separate unit consisting of employees at one of the
Company's three buildings located in the same city held inappropriate.
Mr. Oscar Grossman, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. Peter Stein, of New York City, and Mr. Phillip Manheim,
of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the Union.
Miss Marcia Hertzmark, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
I AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 28, 1941, and July 25, 1941, respectively, United Wholesale
& Warehouse Employees of New York, Local 65, C. I. 0., herein
called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Second
Region (New York City) a petition and an amended petition alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Sears, Roebuck and Co., New York City,
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.
On August 21, 1941, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and
Article` III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On August 25, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the
Union. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on September 4
and 5, 1941, at New York City, before Martin I. Rose, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Com-
pany and the Union were represented and participated in the hearing.
35 N. L. R. B., No. 190.
1036
SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. 1037
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded
both parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no ,prejudicial errors were committed: The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Sears, Roebuck and Co., a New York corporation which 'operates
retail stores, mail-order plants, and factories throughout the United
States, maintains a mail-order plant at 345 Hudson Street, and plants
at 360 West 31st Street and in the Port Authority building in New
York City. The principal materials purchased and sold by the
Company through its Hudson Street plant are women's dresses, coats,
and suits. During 1940 the Company purchased for the Hudson
Street plant more than $2,000,000 worth, of materials, of which about
30 per cent was shipped to it from outside the State of New York.
During the same period the Company sold from that plant merchan-
dise valued at more than $2,500,000, approximately 85 per cent of
which was shipped by the Company to States other than the State
of New York. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Wholesale & Warehouse Employees of New York, Local
65, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations. It admits to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union desires a unit composed of certain employees in the
Hudson Street building of the Company only. The Company desires
a unit composed of employees of that building and also of the Port
Authority building and of Department 14 at its 31st Street building.
Originally all the Company's New York operations were carried
on at, the 31st Street building but, because of expansion, certain
departments were moved to the Hudson Street building in early 1939'
and others to the Port Authority building in January 1941. The
Company occupies only small portions of each of these buildings.
The Hudson Street building is about 3 miles from the 31st Street
building, the Port Authority building is about 1 mile from the 31st
1038 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Street building, and the Port Authority and Hudson Street buildings
are approximately 2 miles apart. There is messenger service between
all of them and the Hudson Street and Port Authority buildings use
extension telephones from the 31st Street building to which all calls
come originally. It appears from the record that employees in
the three buildings do very similar work and fall into similar
classifications.
At the Hudson Street building the Company carries on the
physical work of the women's wearing apparel mail-order business.
There are about 210 employees in the Union's proposed unit in this
building. The Port Authority building consists of a warehouse con-
taining pool stocks of "soft line" merchandise such as gloves, hand-
bags, etc., for serving the Company's retail stores. There are ap-
proximately 110 employees in this building whom the Company
desires to include in the unit. The 31st Street building contains
buying departments and various soft lines of merchandise, the em-
ployees of which the Company does not claim should be included
in the unit, and also a pool stock operation of silk piece goods which
employs about 11 persons whom the Company desires to have
included in the unit.
Each of these buildings has a manufacturer's receiving depart-
ment, a departmental receiving department, an examining room, and
a packing division, and each employs bin loaders who place the
merchandise in stock. The work of the employees in all these depart-
ments at the three buildings is almost identical. The same is true
of the sales departments of the three buildings where orders or
requisitions come in, are, sorted and filled, and where the merchandise
is checked, packed, and shipped. Although at the Hudson Street
building the employees handle wearing apparel, whereas those at the
Port Authority handic gloves and other items and those at the 31st
Street building handle silk piece goods, the work done by the
employees of each classification is very similar.
The Company hires employees according to work classification
rather than for any department or building. All hiring and dis-
charging are done by a personnel manager whose office is located
at the 31st Street building, and the Company maintains only one pay
roll, on which employees are listed by numbered departments rather
than according to the building in which they work. There is frequent
interchange of employees between departments and buildings and
when a' department requires, additional employees a request is made
to the personnel office which attempts to supply the need from other
departments. When mass lay-offs are contemplated, all employees
of the three buildings are considered and lay-offs .are made according
to seniority, taking into, consideration certain other factors. The
SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. 1039
managerial staff of the Company consists of an operating super-
intendent in charge of the three buildings and an operating manager
in charge of each building.
In March 1941 the Union filed with the Board a charge, which was
subsequently withdrawn without prejudice, alleging that the Com-
pany had refused to bargain with the Union as the representative
of employees in the three buildings. The Union explained that its
changed position with respect to the appropriate unit was due to a
decline in its membership at the Port Authority building and to the
fact that it had no members in the 31st Street building at the* time
of the hearing. It admits that employees at the three buildings are
eligible to membership and that organizational efforts were com-
menced both at the 31st Street building and the Hudson Street
building.
Because of the similarity of operations and employee function-
at the Hudson Street building to those of the other two buildings,
and its interdependence as to personnel and management, we find
that the unit requested by the Union is inappropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.'
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the petition
is not appropriate, as stated in Section III above, we find that no
question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of
the Company in an appropriate bargaining unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case; the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question concerning representation of employees of Sears,
Roebuck and Co., New York City, within a unit which is appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining has arisen, within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion
of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
petition for investigation and certification of representatives of
employees of Sears, Roebuck and Co., New York City, filed by
United Wholesale & Warehouse Employees of New York, Local 65,
C. I. 0., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
'Matter of The Lima Kenton Grocery Company and Local Union No . 908, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers (AFL), 29 N. L R B 85