Greenfield's Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1944

54 N.L.R.B. 1315 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of GREENFIELD'S COMPANY and AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 11, C. I. O.
Case No. 114-R--8537.-Decided February 14,1944
Mr. Charles J. Hackler, for the Board.
Lewis, Rice, Tucker, Allen cC Chubb, by Mr. Robert T. Burch, of St.
Louis, Mo., for the Company.
Messrs. Richard Brazier and Henry Scherer, of St. Louis, Mo., for
the Union.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, Local 11, C. I. O:, herein called the Union, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Greenfield's Company, St. Louis, Missouri, herein
called the Company,' the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before William F. Guffey,
Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held in St. Louis, Missouri, on
January 5, 1944. The Company and the Union appeared, partici-
pated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearings are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Company's
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is overruled for reasons
hereinafter stated. All parties were afforded opportunity to 'file
briefs with the Board.
(Incorrectly described in the petition and other formal papers as "Greenfield Clothing"
and corrected by motion at the hearing.
54 N. L. R. B., No. 196. '
1315
1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Greenfield's Company, a Missouri corporation, has its principal
office and place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, where it operates a
single store engaged in the retail sale and distribution of men's cloth-
ing and furnishings. During, the first 9 months of the Company's
fiscal year beginning February 1, 1943, the Company purchased for
resale at its St. Louis store clothing and furnishings amounting in
value to $201,724.65, of which approximately 91 percent was obtained
from points outside the State of Missouri. During the same period the
Company's total sales amounted to $393,252.44, of which $35,149.33
represents sales of merchandise delivered to points outside the State
of Missouri or delivered to a carrier or to the United States mails for
transportation to points outside the State of Missouri. It is estimated
that the Company's total sales for the fiscal year ending January 31,
1944, will approximate $550,000. While it appears that for the month
of November 1943, the Company's out-of-State sales amounted to
approximately 7 percent of the total sales for that month as compared
with 11 percent for the same month in 1942, the record reveals that
the Company's out-of-State sales in 1943 have increased materially
over those of 1942.2
The Company contends that the substantial purchases from out-of-
State sources together with the other factors hereinabove referred to,
do not confer jurisdiction upon the Board in the present proceeding.
This contention has, however, been raised in previous cases upon facts
substantially similar to those shown by th, present record and decided
adversely to the position taken by the Company.3 We find that the
Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Local 11, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On September 20, 1943, the Union requested in writing that the
Company recognize it as exclusive bargaining representative of the
2 During the month of November 1943, the Company's out-of-State sales amounted to
$5,517 as compared with $3,933 for the corresponding month in 1942. The Company's
contention that its future out-of-State, sales will,diminish because of governmental restric-
tions effective as of October 11, 1943, upon the delivery of packages below a certain size
and weight is not supported by the evidence, particularly in view of the fact that such
restrictions do not affect deliveries by parcel post or of garments which have been altered
2 See Matter of Lane Bryant, Inc, 52 N. L. R B. 1536, and cases cited therein.
GREENFIELD'S COMPANY 1317
Company's busheling (alteration) department employees and to
arrange a conference for the purposes of collective bargaining. The
Company did not reply to the Union's request but subsequently de-
clined to recognize the Union upon the ground that its operations were
not within the jurisdiction of the Act and upon the further ground
that the unit proposed by the Union was inappropriate.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced in evidence at
the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate 4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that the employees engaged in the busheling
(alteration) department in the Company's St. Louis store, exclud-
ing supervisors with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively
recommend such action, and all other employees, constitute an ap-
propriate unit. The Company urges that a store-wide unit of all
employees of the Company is the only appropriate unit or in the
alternative that a unit of alteration employees should include the
alteration department employees of Goldering Women's Apparel, a
corporation which leases space in the Company's store for the purpose
of selling women's clothing.
In support of its contention for a store-wide unit the Company
points to the fact that the employees in the alteration department
constitute a group of 14 or 15 employees out of a total of only 85 em-
ployees in the store, and that all employees of the Company are
subject to the same conditions of employment. On the other hand,
there is no interchange between employees of the alteration depart-
ment and the sales employees.5 The former are paid on an hourly
rate while the sales employees are paid a salary, commission, or a
combination of both salary and commission. Moreover, we take notice
of the fact that the employees involved, namely tailors, pressers, pants-
machine operators, and finishers, are generally considered as belong-
ing to a skilled trade having interests separate from those of sales
and other store employees. In harmony with this distinction, the
'The Regional Director reported that the Union had submitted 13 designations dated
since August 19, 1943, all of which bore the apparently genuine original signatures of
persons whose names appear on the Company 's pay roll of November 15, 1943, containing
14 names within the claimed appropriate unit.
s The alteration department employees are located in separate sections of the store apart
from the sales employees. ,
1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union limits its membership to skilled alteration hands and appren-
tices and has made no attempt to organize the remaining employees
of the Company. While the Company has no collective bargaining
agreements, the Union has bargaining agreements with other con-
cerns covering similar employees, including contracts with three other
stores in St. Louis, Missouri. There is,,moreover, nothing in the rec-
ord to indicate that any other labor organization has succeeded in
organizing the other departments of the Company. From the fore-
going facts and upon the basis of the entire record, we are of the
opinion that a unit confined to alteration department employees is
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.6
The further contention of the Company that such unit should in-
clude the alteration employees of a lessee of the Company is equally
without merit. While the alteration department employees of the
aforesaid lessee are subject to the rules and regulations governing
the operation of the Company's store, they are, nevertheless, the
employees of the lessee and not those of the Company which has iuo
direct control or supervision over the activities of such employees. In
addition thereto, the alteration department employees of the lessee
are engaged solely in the alteration of women's garments and have
not been organized by the Union which has confined its membership
.to employees who work exclusively on men's clothing. Under the
circumstances, we find that the alteration department employees of
the lessee Goldering Women's Apparel have interests not sufficiently
in common with those of employees of the Company to warrant their
inclusion in a unit of the latter employees. We accordingly exclude
them from such unit.'
We find that all employees in the busheling (alteration) department
of the Company, excluding supervisory employees 8 " who have the
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such ac-
tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINAT10N OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
See Matter of J L. B8andeis & Sons , 47 N. L R. B. 614.
' See Matter of J. L. Brand 668 & Sons, 50 N L. R B. 325.
$ Among the supervisory employees to be excluded under this provision is an employee
referred to as the fitter , who, the record reveals , has supervision over the other employees
in the alteration department with the power to hire and discharge such employees.
GREENFIELD 'S COMPANY 1319
herein , subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction'.
The Union requested at the hearing that it appear on the ballot as
"Local 11 , Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America ." The request
is hereby granted.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Greenfield's Com-
pany, St. Louis, Missouri, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person qt the polls, but ex-
cluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election,
to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Local 11,
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining.
9