Stow and Davis Furniture Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 5, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 5 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

STOW AND DAVIS FURNITURE CO. c51
wage, whereas the grocery department managers receive an hourly
-wage, plus a percentage of increased sales. As the status of the meat
department managers is like that of the grocery department managers,
we shall treat them alike and include both in the unit. The fact that
they are paid on a somewhat different basis is not sufficient in itself
to justify different unit treatment for them.2
We find that all employees in the retail stores of Fulton Markets,
Incorporated, Waterbury, Connecticut, including grocery and meat
department managers, but excluding office and clerical employees,
warehouse employees, district managers, other supervisors, and guards
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
2 Waterman Dock Company, Inc., 89 NLRB 452.
,STOW AND DAVIS FURNITURE Co. and UNITED FURNITURE: WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1048. February 5,1951
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
On December 5, 1950, the Regional Director of the Seventh Region
held an election among the Employer's employees in a unit found
appropriate in a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
.Board on November 15, 1950? At the close of the election, the parties
were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that out of ap-
proximately 38 eligible voters, 19 voted for and 11 against the Peti-
tioner, and that 8 of the ballots cast were challenged.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient, if counted, to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director caused an investigation
to be made of the challenged ballots and on December 27, 1950, issued
his report. The Regional Director found that six of the challenges
were made by the Petitioner on the alleged grounds that five 2 of the
voters were supervisors and that one 3 was a part-time office janitress.
The Board agent challenged two 4 of the ballots on the ground that the
names of those who cast these ballots were not on the eligibility list.
1 Stow and Davis Furniture Co., 92 NLRB 80.
2 Clarence Hatch, Jr., Joseph Uzarski , Herman Sneden, Morey Raby, and John
Stachowiak.
8 Ethel Conrad.
4 Walter Ampulski and Wilber Smith.
93 NLRB No. 7.
6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He also found that the last two had been subjects of unfair labor
practice charges against the Company involving Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3) of the Act. These charges had been filed by the Petitioner,
but were subsequently withdrawn. The .Regional Director approved
the withdrawal of these charges on December 26, 1950.
As the withdrawal of the charges removed the possibility that the
votes of these two were of eligible voters, the Regional Director rec-
ommended that these two challenges be sustained. Having then deter-
mined that counting the six remaining challenges could not affect the
results of the election, he concluded it to be unnecessary to resolve
these challenges. Thus he found that a majority of the employees
in the appropriate bargaining unit voted for the Petitioner, and rec-
ommended that the Board so certify.
The Employer filed timely exceptions to the report on the challenged
ballots. The Employer does not except to any of the findings or rec-
ommendations of the Regional Director, nor does it object to the
conduct of the election or to conduct affecting the results of the
election. It bases its exceptions on the ground that "The election
conducted was held in a unit inappropriate under the rules and deci-
sions of the National Labor Relations Board."
As the Board has already determined the unit issue and has indi-
cated the reasons for its determination in its Decision and Direction
of Election,-' we find it unnecessary here to repeat these reasons. We
therefore find that the Employer's exceptions are without merit, and
shall overrule them. We shall accordingly adopt the Regional Direc-
tor's report and recommendations, and, as the tally of ballots shows
that the Petitioner received a majority of all the valid ballots cast
at the election we shall certify the Petitioner.
Certification of Representatives
IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that the United Furniture Workers of Amer-
ica, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of all employ-
ees employed at the Employer's Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant No. 2,
including machine operators, welders, and finishers, but excluding
office and clerical employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organiza-
tion is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. -
Stow and Davis Furniture Co, supra.
AMERICAN RADIATOR AND STANDARD SANITARY CORPORATION 7
MEMBERS MuRDOCK and STYLES took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
AMERICAN RADIATOR AND STANDARD SANITARY CORPORATION (STAMPING
PLANT) and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
AMERICAN RADIATOR AND STANDARD SANITARY CORPORATION (BOND
PLANT) and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 3-RC-558 and 3-RC-572. February 5, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated 1 hearing was
held before Ralph E. Kennedy, 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 Murdock].
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The questions concerning representation :
The Intervenor, Local 64, United Office and Professional Workers
of America,2 contends that current collective bargaining contracts
between it and the Employer are a bar to this-proceeding. The Peti-
tioner asserts that the contracts are not a bar because a schism in the
membership of the Intervenor creates a doubt concerning the con-
tinued representation of the Employer's employees by the Intervenor.
The Employer takes a neutral position on this issue.
Since 1944, the Employer has engaged in collective bargaining with
the Intervenor for certain office workers in each of the two plants in-
volved herein. Separate contracts have been executed for each plant,
and the current contracts expire on March 31, 1952.
As -a result of the expulsion of UOPWA from the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations and the proposed amalgamation of UOPWA
1 The captioned cases were consolidated for hearing by order of the Regional Director
dated November 15, 1950.
2 The international union will be referred to herein as UOPWA.
93 NLRB No. 4.