The Halle Bros. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 369 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE HALLE BROS. COMPANY, EMPLOYER and BROTHER-
HOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, DIS-
TRICT COUNCIL No. 6 (AFL), PETITIONER
Case No. 8-RC-55.2.-Decided December 5, 1<949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Charles A.
Fleming, 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
Houston and Murdock].
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed solely of piano finishers.
The Employer contends that the requested unit. is too limited in
scope.
The two piano finishers employed by the Employer wipe new pianos
with polish and remove mars and scratches. Much of the Employer's
piano work also involves the complete refinishing of old pianos. In
connection with this work the piano finishers disassemble pianos in
preparation for the complete refinishing and reassemble them after
the refinishing is done.
The piano finishers work primarily in the piano workroom, which
is located at the rear of the piano salon in the main store building.
Six other employees work in this room : four piano turners, one
general repairman, and one Hammond organ repairman. These
87 NLRB No. 55. 369
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other employees aid in taking apart and reassembling pianos. The
major portion of the refinishing work, however, is done at the ware-
house, some 40 blocks away from the store. There the piano shell is
stripped of finish by either a furniture finisher or a piano finisher ; the
shell is spray painted by the furniture spray painter; and the piano
is rubbed down by the furniture spray painter assisted by a furniture
finisher or by a piano finisher. The piano is then returned to the store
and reassembled. Occasionally, work on the finish of pianos is done in
the customer's home. Such jobs are performed either by the piano
finishers or by furniture finishers, depending solely on the location
of that home.
All 3,500 employees in the store enjoy common benefits, and the
working conditions of the 600 employees in the 33 workrooms are
similar. There is some history of collective bargaining among various
craft employees of the Employer.
These facts and the record as a whole clearly establish the close
connection between the piano finishers' tasks and those of other em-
ployees located in the piano workroom. It also establishes that the
furniture finishers, spray painter, and piano finishers all perform por-
tions of the refinishing work, of the same or similar character.
The Petitioner apparently relies on the fact that 14 stores in the
area have contracts covering piano finishers exclusively, whereas 48
firms which are members of the Association of Furniture Finishers
have contracts covering furniture finishing departments or furniture
finishers not including piano finishers. However, we note that these
contracts exist in stores selling only pianos or in department stores
which lack piano departments or employ no piano finishers. Such a
situation is clearly distinguishable from the instant one, in which
both furniture and piano finishers are employed and work together
in finishing pianos. Moreover, we do not treat contract practice
within a particular area as solely determinative of the unit appro-
priate for bargaining.'
As the unit requested arbitrarily excludes other employees who per-
form identical or similar tasks and have interests similar to those
requested, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappro-
priate.2 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
See Bloomingdale Bros., Inc. , 81 NLRB 1252, and cases cited therein.
s Cannell & Chapin, Inc ., 85 NLRB 887 ; Pomeroy's Inc., 76 NLRB 633 ; Carson Pine
Scott & Company, 75 NLRB 1244; see also The J. L. Hudson Company , 49 NLRB 273, 275;
Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., 73 NLRB 416, 418.