Marshall Field & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1951

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

MARSHALL FIELD & COMPANY 7
dependent and unrelated to that performed by the other groups sought,
and employees performing similar work in the Chicago store and
elsewhere in the Employer's organization are not included in the
proposed unit. As the Petitioner's proposed departmental unit is
not composed of a homogeneous group of employees performing dis-
tinctive functions, and as these employees do not constitute a separate
appropriate unit on any other basis, we find that the unit sought is
inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.'' We shall
therefore dismiss the petition .5
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in this matter be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
' There is no bargaining history in the proposed unit.
° Cf. Marshall Field and Company , 92 NLRB 81.
MARSHALL FIELD & COMPANY and WAREHOUSE AND MAIL ORDEII EM-
PLOYEES UNION, LOCAL #743, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CIIAUFFEURS, WAREIIOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-16014. No-
vember 16, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph A. Butler, 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 Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Boards finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Employer operates a large department store in Chicago, Illi-
nois, and three surburban stores in the Chicago area. To service
97 NLRB No. 8
8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these stores the Employer also operates , in that area, warehouses and
service buildings. Some of these properties are located at consid-
erable distances from each other.
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of the operating employees
employed in the operating and delivery service division of the Em-
ployer's Chicago operations? This is one of the five divisions into
which the Employer divides its operating functions. The Petitioner
contends that this proposed unit includes all employees under the
supervision of the Employer's operating and delivery service division
manager, excluding the employees in the delivery service and those
covered by existing collective bargaining contracts. The Employer
contends that the requested unit is inappropriate in that it fails to,
meet any of the criteria of appropriateness established by the Board.z
The Intervenor, Local 1515-MF Retail Clerks International Asso-
ciation, AFL, also contends that the Petitioner seeks an inappropriate
unit, and that the petition should be dismissed for this and other as-
serted reasons.'
In Marshall Field & Company,4 decided May 31, 1950, the Board
dismissed a petition filed by the present Petitioner seeking a unit
composed essentially of all the Employer's warehousing and stock
handling employees. The Board there stated:
In recent department store warehouse cases, the Board has
denied separate warehouse units in circumstances similar to the
instant facts where any party has claimed such units to be inap-
propriate. This has been true both where the petitioner has
sought to sever the warehouse from a larger unit, and where the
petitioner has attempted to set up such a unit in the absence of
any previous bargaining history. Following the Employer' s reor-
ganization and changes in its supervisory hierarchy, the reasons
for this policy exist in the present case : interlacing supervisory
authority, common personnel policies, similarity of jobs within
and without the unit, and interchange of employees ....5
In its present petition, the Petitioner seeks the somewhat broader
unit described above. This unit likewise, however, fails to include
1 The unit set forth In the petition as amended at the hearing is as follows : All full-
time and short-hour regular employees in traffic , receiving , and stock ; inspecting and
packing services ; and warehouse service employees in buildings of Company located at
State, Washington , and Randolph Streets ; 2653 West Arthington Street ; 460 East Ohio
Street ; and 729 South Wabash Avenue in the city of Chicago , excluding all employees
covered by existing collective bargaining contracts , office employees , confidential employees,
guard, supervisory employees , and suburban store employees.
2 The Employer relies principally upon the Board's recent decision In Marshall Field &
Company, 90 NLRB 1. The decision set forth in detail the bargaining history at the
Employer's warehouses.
3In view of our disposition of the petition set forth hereafter , we find it unnecessary
to discuss the Intervenor 's alternative positions.
4 90 NLRB 1.
5 90 NLRB 1, 4.
H & B AMERICAN MACHINE CO. 9
all,the @mployees doing the same kind of work. Many of the employees
in the proposed unit work in the same or directly comparable job
classifications as employees outside the unit. 8 There is also consider-
able interchange of employees in the proposed unit with employees who
are not sought' Moreover, the record indicates that there have been
no significant changes in the Employer's administrative organization
since the Board's decision in 1950 quoted above. The interlacing
supervisory authority and the common personnel policies still exist.
As the unit does not constitute a traditional bargaining group," and
as it does not include all employees doing the same work and having
similar interests,9 we find that it is inappropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. We shall therefore dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in this matter be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
The Employer introduced evidence showing that 50 job classifications not included
In the unit have functions identical to or directly comparable with 19 job classifications
within the unit. The record shows that approximately 300 employees outside the unit
work in such classifications and that there are approximately 300 employees in the unit
sought.
7 The Employer introduced evidence showing that , since January 1948, there have been
approximately 30 permanent transfers out of the unit and approximately 65 permanent
transfers into the unit . The record also contains evidence of extensive temporary inter-
change with respect to the employees herein involved.
8 See footnote 2 above.
8 Walker Scott Corporation, 89 NLRB 1339 ; compare Montgomery Ward & Co , 89
NLRB 528.
H & B AMERICAN MACHINE Co. and LODGE 1647 OF DISTRICT 64 OF THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No.1 IBC-322. November 16, 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 Torbert H. Macdonald,
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 power in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Murdock, 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 organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
97 NLRB No. 6.