Pioneer Mercantile Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 274 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
than 8 hours per week, electricians, carpenters, painters, service main -
tenance men, drivers, helpers, receiving room and warehouse em-
ployees, tearoom lunchonette, and bakery employees, watchmen, store
detectives, guards, executives and members of their families, current
stockholders, buyers, department heads, and other supervisors as
defined in the Act.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 13-RC-1773 be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
PIONEER MERCANTILE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL
No. 87, AFL, PETITIONER 1
PIONEER MERCANTILE COMPANY and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION No. 137 , AFL, PETITIONER 2 Cases Nos.
21-RC-1870 and 01-RC-1871. July 18, 1951
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Ben Grodsky, 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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act .3
2. The labor organizations involved claim 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
' Herein called Teamsters.
Herein called Retail Clerks.
The record shows that the Employer, who is engaged in the sale of hardware and
automotive parts , annually purchases about $685 , 000 in merchandise , of which about
$120,000 is shipped directly from out of the State . Its annual sales of about $940,000
are all made locally. However , subsequent to the hearing the Employer stipulated that
of these sales in excess of $60 ,000 are made to establishments , each of which sell more
than $25 ,000 outside the State of California . This stipulation is hereby made a part
of the record . We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce and that it will
effectuate the policy of the Act to assert jurisdiction . Hollow Tree Lumber Company,
91 NLRB 635.
95 NLRB No. 31.
PIONEER MERCANTILE COMPANY 27^
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act in Case No. 21-RC-1871.
However, for the reasons stated below, no such question exists in Case
No. 21-RC-1870.
4. The Employer operates one automotive-parts store and two
hardware stores in Bakersfield, a store in Fresno, and another in Taft,
all within the State of California. Only the three Bakersfield stores
are involved in this proceeding.4
In Case No. 21-RC-1870, the Teamsters seeks a unit limited to the
employees of the Employer's Bakersfield automotive-parts store. In
Case No. 21-RC-1871, the Retail Clerks seeks to represent all em-
ployees of the Employer's three Bakersfield stores, excluding the truck
drivers.
The Teamsters has been the recognized bargaining agent for all of
the Employer's Bakersfield truck drivers since 1941; and for the same
period, the Retail Clerks has been recognized by the Employer as the
bargaining representative for all other employees at the Employer's
Bakersfield stores in a single unit. Until March 1950, the automotive-
parts division, which is now housed in the single store sought to be
represented by the Teamsters, was located in one of the two hardware
stores. The record indicates that the functions of the employees in
the automotive-parts division, substantially all of whom were trans-
ferred to .the new store, were in no way affected by their change of
location.
Each store hires its own employees and while there seldom is any
interchange of employees, except on a permanent basis, the record
indicates that the work is quite similar in each store and that transfers
can be made with little additional training. Indeed, before the stores
were separated the usual procedure was for the same clerk to sell both
hardware and automotive parts. All stores sell similar products at
both wholesale as well as retail, although the automotive parts store
sells primarily at wholesale. The employees at all of the stores have
the same pay schedules, hours of work and other working conditions,
and a central labor policy exists for all the stores.
Under all these circumstances, including the existence of a 10-year
bargaining history on a multistore unit basis 5 we find appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining the multistore unit sought by
4 No issue has been raised as to the exclusion of the Fresno and Taft employees. see
Silverwood's, 92 NLRB 1114.
'We find no merit in the contention of the-Teamsters that this bargaining history is
not applicable because the store whose employees it seeks to represent separately was not
in existence until March 1950. As noted above, the store in question was no more than
the same separation previously performed atone of the hardware stores transferred to a
new location , and substantially all of the employees involved transferred to the new
location . In these circumstances , the bargaining history is relevant on the question of
the unit placement of the automotive -parts division employees. Schenley Distillers Corp.,
80 NLRB 124.
961974-52-vol. 95-19
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Retail Clerks in Case No. 21-RC-1871 . 8 We further find that the
urit 'sought-'by the Teamsters is -too limited in scope and therefore
inappropriate for bargaining purposes .7 Accordingly , we shall dis-
miss the petition in Case No . 21-RC-1870.
.
We therefore find that all employees . of the Employer 's three Bakers-
field, California , stores, excluding truck drivers ; guards, watchmen,
outside salesmen, confidential employees," and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 21-RC-1870 be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
U Schenley Distillers Corp., supra ; Kindy Optical Company , 85 NLRB 940; Lone Star
Producing Company, 85 NLRB 1137 ; Bethlehem Fairchild Shipyard Inc., 58 NLRB 579.
7 Under all the circumstances , the Teamsters ' unit could be considered appropriate only
by regarding as controlling the extent of that Union ' s organization . This the statute
prohibits . C. Pappas Company , 80 NLRB 1272.
8 Although the parties agreed that two secretaries are employed in a "confidential"
capacity and should be excluded , the record is silent as to the specific duties of these
employees . If they act in a confidential capacity for individuals charged with managerial
responsibilities in the field of labor relations they are excluded ; otherwise they are included.
SAMUEL A. ELLSBERRY, SR., AND SAMUEL A. ELLSBERRY, JR., D/B/A
SAMUEL A. ELLSBERRY COMPANY and SHOPMEN'S LOCAL UNION 53G,
OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND
ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-
699. July 18, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (e) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles Y. Latimer , hearing
officer. On May 15, 1951, the Board issued an order reopening the
record and remanding the proceeding to the Regional Director for
further hearing. Accordingly, a further hearing was held on May 25,
1951, before Glenn L. Moller, 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, Murdock, and Styles].
'For the reasons stated below, the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on the
grounds of lack of jurisdiction and inappropriate unit is hereby denied.
95 NLRB No. 41.