Marshall Field & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 9, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 182 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and notwithstanding the fact that the new employer was not a party
to the initial proceedings 4
Accordingly, we find that the Employer's objections do not raise
material issues with respect to the conduct of the election, and hereby
overrule the objections. As a majority of the votes were cast for the
Petitioner, we shall certify it as the collective bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Steel Workers of America, CIO,
has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees of
Theodore Gutterman, Ruth Sonking, Lester Sonking, Herbert Gade,
Arthur Gutterman, Melvin Gutterman and Jacob Gutterman, co-
partners doing business as American Valve Mfg. Co., Coxsackie, New
York, in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4 of our
Decision and Directon of Election, as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives.
4 Miller Lumber Company, 90 NLRB 1361.
MARSHALL FIELD & COMPANY and LOCAL 242, AFL, MARSHALL FIELD
EMPLOYEES UNION, BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION5 PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-1519. February 9, 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 Albert Gore, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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 Reynolds and Murdock].
93 NLRB No. 25.
MARSHALL FIELD & COMPANY 183
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 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 Petitioner was certified in 1947 as the bargaining repre-
sentative for a, unit of all the restaurant division employees of the
Employer's State Street store, Chicago, Illinois, excluding, inter alia,
hostesses.' Since that time the Petitioner and the Employer have,
negotiated collective bargaining contracts covering the restaurant
division employees.' During the 1950 contract negotiations the Peti-
tioner requested that hostesses be added to the bargaining unit.
Because the hostesses had initially been excluded from the unit, the
Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the representative of
the hostesses unless and until it is certified as such representative by
the Board.
The Petitioner seeks to include in e already established unit of
restaurant employees, section and doo*hostesses,3 but to exclude the
head hostesses and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.' In the
alternative, the Petitioner would represent the hostesses in a separate
unit. The Employer opposes the Petitioner's alternative request, and
agrees that if the hostesses are nonsupervisory employees, they appro-
priately belong in the established unit of restaurant employees. The
parties agree that the head hostesses are supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act, and that the door hostesses are not. However, the
Employer takes a neutral position concerning the supervisory status
of the section hostesses. Thus, the main issue here to be determined is
whether or not the section hostesses are supervisors within the meaning
of the Act.
Each section hostess is assigned to a definite area in which about 10
waitresses work. They check on the setting of tables ; they seat custo-
mers and provide them with menus, guest checks, and pencils; they
handle minor customer complaints; and they assist the waitresses by
serving coffee during rush periods. In addition, the section hostesses
conduct daily classes on menus and menu changes for the waitresses.
1 Marshall Field & Company, 74 NLRB 411. In that decision hostesses were excluded
pursuant to an agreement by the parties.
1 The current contract covering these employees was executed in 1950 and expires in
1952.
1 The section hostesses are classified by the Employer as "station supervisors " , but here-
inafter this classification shall be referred to as section hostesses
4 The unit sought appears as amended at the hearing.
184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is undisputed that the section hostesses do not have authority to
hire, discipline, transfer, or discharge waitresses; but that in all cases
such authority is vested in the head hostesses. The waitresses do not
consider section hostesses supervisors, but rather coworkers. All re-
quests by the waitresses for time off, sick leave, etc., are made directly
to the head hostesses; and all employee grievances are initially dis-
cussed with the head hostesses.
We believe that the work of the section hostesses is routine in nature,
not involving the exercise of supervisory authority over subordinates.
Accordingly, we find that these employees are not supervisors within
the meaning of the Act.5 The Board is of the further opinion that the
section hostesses and the door hostesses have a sufficient community of
interest with the waitresses and other restaurant employees to be ap-
propriately included in the existing unit of such employees.
As no question of representation exists at the present time in the
basic restaurant division unit, the Board shall direct an election among
the section hostesses (station supervisors) and door hostesses, exclud-
ing head hostesses and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. If a
majority of the employees voting in the election cast their ballots for
the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be a
part of the present restaurant bargaining unit and the Petitioner may
bargain for such employees as part of that unit.6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
5 Cf. The Baltimore Transit Company , 92 NLRB 688
6 See The Baltimore Transit Company , footnote 5, supra
CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIO1 AL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 95, AFL, PETITIONER
CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC., and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 52, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 6-RC-614,
6-RC-673, and 6-RC-700. February 9, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Erwin Lerten, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
93 NLRB No. 26.