W. T. Grant Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 670 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
W. T. Grant Company and James Bushart,
Petitioner, and General Truck Drivers,
Warehousemen and Helpers Local No. 235,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America.
Case 21-RD-916
November 21, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
,Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Sylvan L.
Katz ,on August 8, 1969. Following the hearing,
pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, this
case was transferred to the National Labor
Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, the
Employer filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
brief, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer,
asserts that the Union, a labor organization, is no
longer the representative, as defined in Section 9(a)
of the Act, of the employees designated in the
petition.
3. The Petitioner seeks to decertify the Union as
the representative of the Appliance Service Depot
employees, including technicians, drivers, helpers,
and clerical employees at the Employer's Appliance
Service Depot in Buena Park, California. The
Union contends that the petition should be
dismissed because the unit sought is not coextensive
with the existing collective-bargaining unit, and
therefore, is not appropriate for decertification.
In 1961, the Employer opened a distribution
center in Buena Park and in the same year the
Union was certified as the collective-bargaining
representative of the warehousemen in the
distribution center. In 1961 and 1963, the Employer
and Union executed collective-bargaining
agreements covering all warehouse employees and
excluding, inter alia , office clerical employees. In
1964, the Union was certified as the representative
of the office clerical employees, and on May 25,
1964, agreed with the Employer to apply the 1963
contract then in effect to the office clericals.
In late 1965, the Employer opened the Appliance
Service Depot in the same building in Buena Park,
and in July 1966, recognized the Union as the
representative of all appliance servicemen, including
appliance depot truckdrivers and helpers, and office
clerical employees at the Appliance Service Depot.
On July 25, 1966, the Union and Employer executed
an agreement to extend the provisions of the existing
1963 contract to cover these employees.
On October 15, 1966, the Employer and Union
executed a new 3-year contract covering all
employees at the Distribution Center and Appliance
Service Depot, including all warehouse, warehouse
office clerical and appliance 'service depot
employees. Representives of both the distribution
and appliance centers participated in negotiations
for the new contract with the Employer's' labor
relations counsel. The contract, agreed upon provides
the same working conditions and terms -of
employment for all employees with certain
variations to_ deal with the -'peculiarities' of each
operation.'
The unit appropriate in a decertification election
must be coextensive with either the unit previously
certified or the one recognized in the existing
contract unit.' The Union contends that the group of
Service employees named in the petition constitutes
only part of the unit described in the most recent
collective-bargaining agreement and, therefore, is
not appropriate for decertification. On the other
hand, the Employer takes the position that such a
unit is appropriate for decertification since the
Appliance Service Depot has always been a separate
and distinct operating division,3 and, in any event,
there has never been an overall unit certification.
While there are factors which would tend to
establish the propriety of a separate unit of service
employees, if this were an initial certification
proceeding, the issue before us is whether the
Employer and Union have merged this group into
the existing unit with other employees. We find that
they have done so Thus, when the Union was first
recognized as representative of Service Depot
employees, the Employer and Union did not
The Service Depot, but not the Distribution Center, is open on
Saturday Therefore Service Depot employees may have a workweek which
includes Saturday Similarly, because of the heavy work load on Christmas
Eve day, service employees receive a "floating holiday" in lieu thereof In
addition, service technicians have a longer period of probation than other
service and distribution employees, such as drivers, helpers, and clericals
Also, as operating hours may vary there are minor differences involving
the times of reporting to and leaving work
Calorator Manufacturing Corp , 129 NLRB 704, fn 3, cf Univac
Division of Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, 137
NLRB 1232, Fisher-New Center Co, 170 NLRB No 104, Clohecy
Collision, Inc, 176 NLRB No 83
The Employer argues that this separateness will be increased by its
intended move of the distribution center to Camarillo, California, 85 miles
from its present location Although the Employer has bargained with the
Union over the effects of this move, the move has not yet occurred
179 NLRB No. 114
W. T. GRANT,COMPANY
negotiate a separate contract for them,, but merely
agreed to and applied the extant
collective-bargaining agreement. Then in late 1966,
when the applicable contract expired, the parties
negotiated on an overall basis for a new agreement
and entered into one contract providing terms and
conditions of employment for all Buena Park
employees. Under these circumstances `we find that
the separately certified and recognized units have
been merged into one overall unit that-covered by
the most recent collective-bargaining agreement.4
Accordingly, as the Petitioner is here seeking to
671
decertify only, a segment of the existing bargaining
unit, we shall dismiss the petition: '
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed. herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Our conclusion is not inconsistent with the fact that the Union and
Employer have bargained concerning matters affected by •the anticipated
move of the distribution center Such sessions do not change the character
and scope of the existing unit or negate the 3-year bargaining history on a
joint basis