J. N. Adam & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 7 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

J. N. ADAM & CO. 7
eligibility at this time, and find no merit in the Employer's contention.
We therefore overrule the Employer's exceptions.
Accordingly, as there is no exception to the Regional Director's
recommendation that the election be set aside, we shall set aside the
election, and shall direct that a new election be held when the Regional
Director shall advise the Board that circumstances permit the free
choice of a bargaining representative .4
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on January 17, 1951,
among employees of Clippard Instrument Laboratory, Inc., at its
Cincinnati, Ohio, plant, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
4 Craddoele-Terry Shoe Corporation, 82 NLRB 161.
J. N. ADAM & Co. and BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL 264, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER . Case No. 3-RCi-604.
April 24, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William J. Cavers, 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-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, 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 representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within. the meaning of Section 9
1 At the hearing , Local 449, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , A. F. L., withdrew its motion to intervene herein.
2 At the hearing , the Employer and Retail Clerks Union , Local 212 , affiliated with
Retail Clerks International Association , A. F. L., the Intervenor herein , moved to dismiss
the petition on the ground that the Petitioner 's showing of interest is inadequate. The
hearing officer referred ruling on the motion to the Board . Because it is well established
that the requirement of a showing of interest is an administrative expedient , not litigable
by the parties , we deny the motion. Veneer Products, Inc., 81 NLRB 492.
2 We find no merit in the contention of the Intervenor that employees involved herein
are ineligible for membership in the Petitioner , and therefore may not be found to
constitute an appropriate unit. A jurisdictional limitation on membership is not con-
trolling on the unit issue. Denton's, Inc., t/a Robinson-Schwenn Store, 83 NLRB 35,
and cases cited therein.
94 NLRB No. 5.
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer is engaged in retail merchandising at Buffalo and
Niagara Falls, New York. Only the Employer's Buffalo department
store and its affiliated operations are involved in this proceeding. At
Buffalo, the Employer conducts its business at three locations: Its
main store in the shopping district; its Dixie Building, used primarily
as a warehouse, across the street from the main store ; and the G & H
Warehouse of 383 Realty Corporation ,4 about 5 miles distant.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of nonselling employees at the main store
and Dixie Building, including freight handlers, checkers, checker-
markers, markers, receiver-shippers, and the returned goods clerk, or,
if the Board finds this unit inappropriate, an alternative unit of ware-
house employees at the G & H Warehouse, including light and heavy
stockmen, shuttle truck drivers, checker-markers, inspector-packers,
furniture packers, the returned goods clerk, and the freight elevator
operator. The Employer and the Intervenor, urging the previous
over-all history of collective bargaining and the integration of the
Employer's operations, contend that neither proposed unit is appro-
priate for bargaining purposes.
The Employer divides its operations into six main sectors under the
general supervision of its president : Personnel and labor relations,
merchandising, fiscal, display, advertising, and store management.
The Employer has broken down "store management" into five sections
under the over-all supervision of its store and service superintendents :
Maintenance, traffic, wrapping and packing, and warehouse, each
under its supervisor, and miscellaneous, under the supervision of the
service superintendent.
The employees in the principal unit proposed by the Petitioner
work in the maintenance, traffic, wrapping and packing, and ware-
house sections at the main store and Dixie Building. The employees
in the alternative proposed unit work in the warehouse section at
the G & H Warehouse. Other employees in the maintenance, traffic,
wrapping and packing, and warehouse sections at the main store
and Dixie Building include inspector-packers, stockmen, inspector-
wrapper-cashiers, and parcel collectors.-' Other employees in the
warehouse section at the G & H Warehouse include a merchandise
clerical employee, a maintenance mechanic, a porters coal passers,
watchmen, and firemen.7 All the Employer's employees receive the
4 Other local department stores also use the G & H Warehouse.
5 One of the parcel collectors is otherwise known in the record as a C. O. D. clerk.
6 Otherwise called an elevator relief man and janitor in the record.
7 Although the record states that the employees in the 5 categories last named, and 2 of
15 heavy stockmen and the freight elevator operator at the G & H Warehouse are employees
of 383 Realty Corporation working under its supervisor, they are hired and paid by the
Employer, which is proportionately reimbursed by the other department stores using the
warehouse. As noted below, the Employer and the Intervenor have bargained for persons
employed on this basis at the G & H Warehouse.
J. N. ADAM & Co. 9
same general indoctrination course, have the same general employee
privileges and benefits, and come under the same job-rating program.
About November 14, 1946, New York State Labor Relations Board,
following a consent election, certified the Intervenor as the repre-
sentative of the Employer's employees, including employees at the
G & H Warehouse, except furniture finishers and cabinetmakers, but
excluding supervisors, and other categories not involved in this pro-
ceeding. On January 22, 1947, the Employer and the Intervenor
entered into a collective bargaining agreement covering these em-
ployees. Thereafter, the Employer recognized the Intervenor as the
exclusive bargaining representative of furniture finishers, cabinet-
makers, freight handlers, freight elevator operators, watchmen, fire-
men, and porters at the G & H Warehouse. In 1948, 1949, and 1950,
the Employer and the Intervenor entered into collective bargaining
contracts covering all employees for whom the Intervenor was the
certified or designated bargaining agent.
The last contract between the parties was so drawn as to be effective
from February 6, 1950, until February 3, 1951, and from year to year
thereafter in the absence of notice." On January 31 and February 1,
1951, respectively, the Regional Director, following consent elections,
certified District Council No. 4, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators
and Paperhangers of America, A. F. L., as the exclusive bargaining
representative of furniture finishers and cabinetmakers at the G & H
Warehouse, and Stationary Engineers Local Union No. 907, I. U. O. E.,
A. F. L., as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's
boiler room employees.
There is no evidence in the record that employees in either unit
sought by the Petitioner are craftsmen, nor do they constitute sepa-
rate departments of the Employer's operations of a type which the
Board has found may constitute separate units for bargaining pur-
poses. Employees suggested for exclusion from the proposed units
have close interests with those proposed for inclusion, and their selec-
tion is arbitrary. The Employer has not bargained with any labor
organization for employees limited to either proposed unit. It has
bargained with the Intervenor on a more comprehensive basis. Under
these circumstances, we find that employees in neither of the units
sought by the Petitioner may constitute a separate appropriate unit.
We shall therefore dismiss the petition.,,
6 This contract was not urged, and because the petition herein was filed on December 19,
1950, less than 2 months before its earliest expiration date, could not operate as a bar to
this proceeding. We therefore find no merit in the contention of the Intervenor that it
was an abuse of administrative discretion to issue the notice of representation hearing
herein while the Employer and the Intervenor were holding bargaining conferences.
B Marshall Field & Company, 90 NLRB 1, and Stern Brothers, 81 NLRB 1386, and cases
cited therein.
We find no merit in the Petitioner's contention that the units it seeks should be found
appropriate , because the Intervenor has allegedly failed adequately to represent the
employees in the existing unit.
10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
VULCAN TIN CAN COMPANY AND VULCAN STAMPING AND MANUFACTUR-
ING CO., INC .:, and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORIKERs
OF AMERICA, UE, PETITIONER . Case No. 13-RC-1749. April 24,
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 Richard C. Swander, 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 engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
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's primary request is for a unit of all production
and maintenance employees at the Vulcan Tin Can Company's Hill-
side, Illinois, plant. Alternatively, it seeks, if the Board finds its
initial unit inappropriate, a second unit embracing the production and
maintenance employees of the Vulcan Stamping and Manufacturing
Company's plant at Bellwood, Illinois. The two companies, both of
which appeared at the hearing, contend that because of the common
ownership and control, and the operational integration of the two
companies, neither proposed unit is appropriate, and that the em-
ployees of both plants must be joined in a single unit. The parties
I At the hearing the Petitioner made a secondary request to represent the employees of
the Vulcan Stamping and Manufacturing Co., Inc. We have construed the request as a
motion to amend the petition by adding the name of that company as an employer. On
the record as a whole , and particularly the contentions of Vulcan Tin Can Company and
Vulcan Stamping and Manufacturing Co., Inc., that they operate as a single employer
for the purposes of this proceeding , the motion is granted.
94 NLRB No. 7.