Belk's Department Store of Savannah, Ga., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 729 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

BELK'S DEPARTMENT STORE OF SAVANNAH, GA., INC. 729
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.]
BELK 'S DEPARTMENT STORE OF SAVANNAH, GA., INC. and RETAIL CLERKS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UN10N 1604, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 10-RC-1079. March 7, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clarence D. Musser,
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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is a Georgia corporation which operates a depart-
ment store in Savannah, Georgia. During the year 1950, the Em-
ployer purchased approximately $400,000 worth of goods for resale,
more than 50 percent of which was shipped to it from outside the State
of Georgia. All sales were local.
More than 50 percent of the capital stock of the Employer is owned
by the Employer's president, W. H. Belk, and his children, who also
hold substantial, and in some cases, controlling amounts of stock in
more than 250 separately incorporated retail stores located throughout
the southern States.2
W. H. Belk and two members of his family also are the officers and
part owners of two North Carolina corporations, Belk's Stores Buy-
ing Service, Inc., and Belk Brothers' Company of Charlotte, North
Carolina. These corporations operate buying services, the former in
Charlotte, North Carolina, the latter in New York City, for the use
of the many retail stores in which the Belk family has an interest.
Each of the service corporations has offices and display rooms where
samples of manufacturers' merchandise are on display. Goods are
bought only by store managers or buyers in the name of the individ-
' At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is
not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. For the reasons given in
paragraph 1, hel-w, the motion is denied.
2 There are 64 stores in North Carolina , South Carolina , Georgia, and Virginia alone,
in which the Belk family owns a controlling interest
93 NLRB No. 110.
730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ual stores. The cost of the buying service is met by assessment on the
individual stores, calculated on the basis of a percentage of each
store's sales. No store is required to buy anything through the serv-
ice, but whether it does or not, it is assesssed for its contribution to
the cost of the service.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act .3 Although the Employer is a corporate entity
separate from those which operate other stores controlled by the
Belk family or in which they have an interest, the Board believes that,
in view of the foregoing facts, the Employer operates as part of a
multistate enterprise. Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all store employees, in-
cluding the cashier, but excluding bookkeepers, the warehouseman,
janitors, and six alleged buyers, all of whom the Employer would
include. The parties agree to the exclusion of certain named su-
pervisors and the employees of the two leased departments.
The Petitioner's reason for desiring to exclude the bookkeepers,
the warehouseman, and the janitors is solely that they do not "come
under" the jurisdiction of the Petitioner. The Board has frequently
held that jurisdictional inability of a union to represent certain em-
ployees is not a ground for excluding them from a unit, if their in-
clusion would otherwise be appropriate.' As the Board has repeatedly
found appropriate units of selling and nonselling employees in re-
tail stores, we shall include these disputed employees in the unit .6
The Petitioner contends that the six alleged buyers are supervisors,
but it offered no evidence to substantiate its contention. The record
shows that these employees are sales clerks in various departments
of the store. They are classified by the Employer as clerks. They
have no authority to change or recommend changes in the status of
other employees, nor do they direct their work. Each of the six has
on occasion been taken on a buying trip with the supervisor of her
floor, but only in an advisory capacity. None has authority to decide
upon what shall be bought, or to buy it. In view of these uncon-
8 Parks-Belk Company of Elrozabethton, 77 NLRB 429.
4 Cf The Borden Company, Southern Division , 91 NLRB 628; Gifford -Hill & Company,
Inc., et al, 90 NLRB 428
5 The Halle Bros. Company, 91 NLRB 100.
e Grossman Department Store, Inc, 90 NLRB No. 275.
c
OLIVER MACHINERY COMPANY 731
troverted facts, the Board finds that the six alleged buyers are neither
supervisors nor managerial employees. Accordingly, we shall in-
clude them in the unit.
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its de-
partment store and warehouse in Savannah, Georgia, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All selling 7 and nonselling employees including bookkeepers,
janitors, and the warehouseman, but excluding employees of the
leased departments, the general manager, assistant manager, first
floor supervisor, basement supervisor, and other supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7Including Rosa Daughtry , Marie James , Vannie Brigham , Effie Bland , Lillian Walton,
and Mary Wmdelschaefer.
OLIVER MACHINERY COMPANY and UNITED DAIRY, BAKERY AND FOOD
WORKERS LOCAL No. 386, AND RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT
STORE UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1066. March
8, 1951
Decision and Direction
On December 15, 1950, pursuant to a stipulation for certification
upon consent election executed on November 29, 1950, by the Employer,
the Petitioner, and Local No. 911, United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America (UE), herein called the Intervenor, an election
by secret ballot was held in a unit of all employees of the Employer's
label printing department, at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant, ex-
cluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. Upon the conclusion of the election,
a tally of ballots was furnished the parties in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations of the Board. The tally shows that, of the
50 ballots cast, 24 were for the Petitioner, none were for the Inter-
venor, 21 were against participating labor organizations, and 5 were
challenged. No objections to the conduct of the election were filed
within the time provided therefor.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the re-
sults of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the Board's
Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, on January
12, 1951, issued and served upon the parties a report on challenged
ballots. In his report, the Regional Director recommended that the
93 NLRB No. 107.