Herbert Men's Shops Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 24, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 842 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

842' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HERBERT MEN'S SHOPS CORPORATION and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION, A. F. or L., PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-
1779. May 24, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Irving M.
Friedman, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
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
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Retail Clerks International Association, A. F. of L., herein-
after called the Petitioner, is a labor organization claiming to repre-
sent employees 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 Petitioner seeks a unit of all salespeople in the Employer's
Chicago and La Grange, Illinois, stores, including window trimmers,
but excluding warehouse employees, office employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined by the Act. The Employer agrees that the
multistore unit is appropriate, but it contends that the warehouse
employees and office employees should also be included in the unit, and
that store managers, as supervisors within the meaning of the Act,
should be excluded from the unit.
The Employer operates a chain of 13 men's clothing stores in
Chicago, Illinois, and its suburbs. Ten of the Employer's 13 stores
have a store manager and 1 salesperson sometimes referred to as a
"second-man," 1 store has a manager and 2 second-men, while 2 stores
each have a manager but share a second-man. Four warehousemen
and 5 office employees are employed at the warehouse and management
office in a location separate and apart from all of the stores.
The warehouse employees check merchandise, fill orders for delivery
to the stores, and perform the usual stockroom duties ; while the office
employees in the same location do routine bookkeeping, auditing of
reports, and stenographic work. The warehouse employees are di-
rectly supervised by the president of the Company. The office em-
ployees work a 40-hour week and are responsible to the company con-
troller. On the other hand, the store salesmen sell merchandise to
94 NLRB No. 122.
HERBERT MEN'S SHOPS CORPORATION 843
customers, arrange merchandise, and maintain routine inventory rec-
ords. They work 60 hours per week under the direction of the re-
spective store managers. All the stores, as parts of an integrated
retail chain store operation, are in turn supervised 'by two company
,executives. Accordingly, the working conditions, duties, and super-
vision of the salesmen in the various stores are separate and distinct
from those of the warehouse and office employees. We therefore find
that the warehouse and the office employees are not appropriately a
part of the sales unit.'
The only remaining question is whether or not the store managers
,are supervisors. As shown in the record although store managers do
,spend a majority of their time at sales duties similar to those per-
formed by the salesmen, they are in charge of their respective stores
.and have full and immediate responsibility for their operation. Store
managers also train salesmen and direct their work. Moreover, the
record discloses that even though final authority to hire and discharge
salesmen is vested in one company executive, store managers have
-authority effectively to recommend the discipline, transfer, and dis-
-charge of salesmen. Accordingly, we find that the store managers are
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act'
• We find no merit in the Petitioner's contention that because a
store manager supervises only one employee he cannot be included
in the definition of a supervisor in Section 2 (11) of the Act, wherein
-the plural term "employees" is used. This contention ignores the rule
of construction that in determining the meaning of an Act of Congress,
unless the context indicates otherwise, words importing the plural
include the singular.8 We shall therefore exclude the supervisors
from the unit.
We find that all regular salespeople in the Employer's Chicago and
La Grange, Illinois, stores, including the window trimmers, but ex-
cluding warehouse employees, truck drivers, office employees, store
managers, and all other supervisors as 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.]
I Sears Roebuck & Company, 91 NLRB 1411.
2 National Tea Co, 89 NLRB 1239; Home Stores, Inc., 87 NLRB 335.
2 62 Stat. 859 , 1 USC Sec. 1. Cf. Keystone Printing Service-Waukegan Nelve-Sun,
-85 NLRB 157.