Walker Scott Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1339 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of WALKER SCOTT CORPORATION,1 EMPLOYER and E. J.
GUMD, SECRETARY-TREASURER, BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES' INTER-
NATIONAL U NION, AFL, LOCAL No. 102, PETITIONER
In the Matter of WALKER ScoTr CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS LOCAL UNION 542,
AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREIOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PE-
TITIONER
Cases Nos . 01-RC-1140 and 01-RC-1179.-Decided May 16,1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
Jerome Smith, hearing officer. The hearing officers' rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the 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 Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation 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 Employer operates a retail department store, two warehouses,
and a service building in San Diego, California.'- All. four buildings
are located within a few city blocks of each other. The Employer's
The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
a A third warehouse , not involved in this proceeding because there are no employees
regularly stationed there, is located several miles from San Diego, at National City,
California.
89 NLRB No. 168.
1339
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
entire operation is conducted under a unified management. All com-
pany policies, privileges, and benefits are determined in the store office,
and affect all employees alike, regardless of location. All employees
have uniform working conditions, and identical vacation and other
benefits.
The Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-1140 seeks to represent a unit of
night janitors, day janitors, janitors-warehouse, watchmen-janitors,
utility girl, janitress, freight elevator and store receiving clerks,
elevator operators, and stock janitor, in all four buildings. The Peti=
tioner in Case No. 21-RC-1179 seeks to represent a unit of all ware-
housemen, receiving, checking, stock and/or transfer clerks, mailing
clerks, delivery clerks, stockmen, furniture finisher, appliance de-
livery and service men and helpers, and truck delivery men and help-
ers employed' at 'the two warehouses. The Employer contends that
both units are inappropriate. There is no bargaining history affecting
any of the Employer's employees.
Case No. 01-RC-1140
The unit sought in this case includes employees almost all of whom
perform more than one kind of task. Most of the janitors spend a
substantial portion of their time doing stock work, as does the utility
girl, and the freight elevator and store receiving clerks spend 60 per-
cent of their time as receiving, clerks. Moreover, much of the work
performed by employees in the proposed unit is also done by other
employees in the. store. Thus, the freight elevators are operated by a
variety of employees, and passenger elevators by temporarily assigned
salespersons and cashiers as well as by the regular operators. Regular
elevator operators are frequently transferred to positions as sales-
persons or clericals, and vice versa.
We have held that a unit of all elevator operators consists only of a
segment of a broader custodial unit, and is therefore inappropriate.!,
For the same reason, we have also found inappropriate a proposed
unit of elevator operators, porters, and maids, which, like the unit
proposed in this case, excludes other maintenance or service em-
ployees 4 Therefore, in accordance with prevailing Board policy and
in view of the high degree of interchangeability between the employees
covered by the petition with other selling and nonselling employees
throughout the store, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner
3 The Bailey Department Stores Company, 85 NLRB 312; May Department Stores, 82
NLRB 731.
The Bailey Department Stores Company, supra.
WALKER SCOTT CORPORATION 1341
in this case is inappropriate . Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petition in Case No. 21-RC-1140.
Case No . ,21-RC-1179
We believe that the unit sought by the Petitioner in this case is also
inappropriate . The two warehouses are integral parts of the Em-
ployer's operations . They serve primarily as reserve stockrooms for
a large number of the sales departments . In them, merchandise
destined for retail sale is received , marked , checked, priced, and
stocked . Those sales departments that do not use storage space in
the warehouses have stockrooms in the store where store employees
perform tasks substantially similar to those of the warehouse em-
ployees . Because of the integration of function between the store and
the warehouses there is a constant interchange of employees and a
constant interflow of communication among all three locations. As
the unit sought does not constitute a traditional ' bargaining group
and as it does not include all employees doing the same work and.
having similar interests , we find that it is inappropriate .5 Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss this petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions herein be, and they hereby
are, dismissed.
6 Connell & Chafn, Inc., 85 NLRB 887; Bloomingdale Brothers, Inc., 81 NLRB 1252;
Bonwit Teller, Inc., 84 NLRB 414.