Foreman & Clark, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1504 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in this ease, we hereby order that
the petition filed in the instant matter be, and it is hereby, dismissed.
FOREMAN & CLARK, INC. and LOCAL 297, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 91-RC-1536.
August 31,1951
• Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur Hailey, 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 [Members Houston, 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 organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. The alleged question concerning representation :
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all tailor shop employees
including tailors, bushelmen-fitters, finishers, operators, rippers, and
pressers,' working at the Employer's nine retail stores in southern
California? Although the Employer agrees with the geographic
scope of the proposed unit, it contends that an over-all unit including
salesmen and will-call boys, in addition to those employees sought by
the Petitioner, is the only appropriate unit.
Separate units among employees of department or retail clothing
stores are appropriate only when comprised of craft or professional
employees, or where departments having a craft nucleus or composed
of employees performing distinctive functions are involved.3 We
have held that a group of alteration shop employees varying widely in
skill, similar to those herein involved, are not entitled to separate repre-
sentation on a craft basis .4 It is clear that the Employer's alteration
shop employees are not professional employees. The only remaining
reason for finding that these employees constitute a separate appro-
I Employer sells both men's and women ' s apparel at some of its stores and the
Petitioner desires to represent all employees involved in the alteration of men's or
women's garments.
2 These nine retail stores are located in Los Angeles , Long Beach , Hollywood, Hunting-
ton Park , San Diego , Pomona , Burbank , and San Bernardino.
2 See G? ossman Department Eta? e, Inc, 90 NLRB No. 275.
4 Robertson Brothels Department Store, Inc ., 95 NLRB 271.
95 NLRB No. 198.
FOREMAN & CLARK, INC. 1505
priate unit would be on a departmental basis. However, the record
in this case' reveals that the Employer's alteration shops are not
organized along clear-cut, departmental lines because at only 3 of the
Employer's 9 stores are the alteration shop employees separately super-,
vised, > and at least 11 of the 45 employees sought serve in a dual
capacity, performing other functions outside the alteration shop.
Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, we find no per-
suasive` reason why the -alteration shop employees should constitute a
separate appropriate unit on a craft, professional, or departmental
basis. 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, and we shall therefore
dismiss the petition.
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant
matter be, and it is hereby, dismissed.
MEMBER MURDOCK., dissenting :
I do not believe that the conclusion of my colleagues to dismiss this
petition properly reflects the ' factual situation in this case. The unit
sought by the Petitioner is confined to tailor shop employees in a
chain of clothing stores. There is no bargaining history involved and
none of the employees in the Employer's stores are represented by a
union . • Apart from the obvious nonprofessional status of alteration
department employees, the majority concludes that these individuals
are not craftsmen or a distinct,. homogeneous departmental group. It
is true that a panel of the Board recently held in a decision in which
I did not participate, that certain alteration employees of various clas-
si fications were not craftsmen .5 On the other hand, it is equally clear
that tailors, are highly skilled workmen with a tradition of craft
status.e In my view, however, it is not necessary to determine whether
the employees concerned in the instant petition are craftsmen within
our definition of the term or not. The tailors, bushelmen-fitters, fin-
" Robertson Brothers Department Store, Inc., supra , This case . involved the severance
of a group of alteration department employees from an established broader unit. The
skills of these employees were considerably limited and the decision did not determine
the craft status of the one tailor in that unit. The instant record is not clear as to the
degree of skill required of each of the classifications involved. However, it was testified
at the hearing that a minimum of 3 years' experience is required for competence as a
bushelman-fitter; with lesser degrees of skill required for less important classification.
, The Board may take judicial notice, I believe , of the craftlike tradition of the tailoring
"profession ." Separate representation of these employees has been recognized by indi-
vidual employers in the retail field for a considerable length of time and alteration
department units have frequently been represented by the Petitioner. See Ifirstein,
Stores and Unions, -p. 151. See also, May Department Stores Co., d/b/a Famous-Barr
Co. v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376, where the Supreme Court found that these employees
bad "a - degree of self organization and special trade which sufficiently differentiates them
from other employees ." ( Emphasis added.) .
1506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ishers, operators, rippers, and pressers at the Employer's stores are
all engaged in manual work, much of it highly skilled, which is easily
differentiated from the duties of the selling personnel. Tailor shop
employees are paid on a different basis than other employees and in
one instance work at times when the remainder of the store is closed.
They are separately located and in most instances salesmen are under
direction not to enter their work quarters. The majority decision
apparently considers the unit to be inappropriate, as a departmental
-grouping because a limited number of these employees do a limited
amount of work outside the department. I do not consider this fac-
tor to be determinative. It should be noted that such "interchange"
is confined to instances where alteration department employees per-
forim duties elsewhere in the store for, in most instances, minor por-
tions of their work 'time.' There is no instance in the record of
nonalteration employees doing work in the tailor shop. To hold that
such "interchange" indicates a community of interest obscuring the
distinctness of the alteration departments' skills is to ignore its lim-
ited nature. The instant situation is clearly distinguishable, accord-'
ingly, from those cases in which we have held a unit of alteration
employees to be inappropriate because it did not include all personnel
performing that type of work.8 -
On the entire record, I find that the alteration employees constitute
a basically highly skilled, distinct, and homogeneous departmental
group which, in the absence of any past or present representation
on a broader basis, could constitute a 'unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining."
' The incidents noted in the record almost entirely concern relief selling done by the
lesser skilled employees or janitor work done by individuals who also do the pressing
in the tailor shop. In none of these instances does the -employee perform a majority of
his or her work outside the department.
' See Carson Pirie Scott & Co ., 75 NLRB 1244 ; and Handel Brothers , Inc., 77 NLRB
512. In these , the only two instances where the Board has so held , the units requested
did not encompass both men 's and women's alteration departments despite the basic
similarity of the work . Extent of organization was accordingly found to , be the basis,
for the proposed grouping . Such a situation is, of course , not present in the instant case:
9 See Angelica Hosiery Mills, Inc., 95 NLRB 1284, and cases cited therein for
comparable instances in which the Board has granted separate representation.
MARTIN PARRY CORPORATION 1 and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFr AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL No. 12, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1228.
August 31, 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 Carroll L. Martin , hearing
' The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
95 NLRB No. 146.