Robertson Brothers Department Store, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 271 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

ROBERTSON BROTHERS DEPARTMENT STORE, INC . 271
ROBERTSON BROTHERS DEPARTMENT STORE, INC.' and AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 13-
RC-1773 and 13-RC-1840. July 18, 1951
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
Ivan C. McLeod, 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
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner and. Retail Clerks International Association,
Local No. 37, AFL, the Intervenor, ate labor organizations claiming
to represent employees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Employer and Intervenor contend that a subsisting collective
bargaining contract between them is a bar to the proceeding in Case
No. 13-RC-1840.2 The original of this contract was executed by
them on March 8, 1948, for an initial term of 3 years, ending March
8,1951.. On January 19, 1951, they executed a supplemental contract,
incorporating the terms of the original contract and of several amend-
ments thereto, and extended it to March 8, 1953. Neither the original
contract nor the amendments thereto and extension thereof contained
automatic renewal provisions. As the petitions in both proceedings
herein were timely filed before the expiration of the term of the orig-
inal contract,s we find that neither the original contract nor the exten-
sion thereof is a bar to those proceedings.4
We find that. a question affecting, commerce exists, concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
' As to Case No. 13-RC-1773, they concede that the unlawful union-security provision
contained in their contract prevents it from barring this proceeding . In Case No.
13-RC-1840, however , the Employees and Intervenor assert that a supplement executed
before the filing of the petition in that case . cured the illegality of the union-security
provision and preserved the contract as a bar. In view of our finding for other reasons
that the contract is not a bar, we need not resolve the issue thus presented.
E The petition in Case No. 13-RC-1773 was filed on January 26, 1951 ; that in Case
No. 13-RC-1840 was filed on March 5, 1951.
* General Tire and Rubber Company, 92 NLRB No. 16; Douglas Public Service
Corporation, Sl NLRB 588.
Cf. Armour & Co. (De Soto Creamery & Produce), 94 NLRB 647. In that case,
unlike the present one , the contracting union had served upon the Employer a written
notice of termination or modification of its . contract pursuant to the provisions of Section 8
(d) of'the Act.
95 NLRB No. 46
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS • BOARD
4. The. appropriate unit:
(a) The alteration employees.
In Case No. 13-RC-1773, the Petitioner seeks to represent•a separate.
unit of the Employer's alteration employees, including those in both
the men's and women's clothing departments. The Employer and'
Intervenor oppose the formation of such a unit because of the collective-
bargaining history on the basis of a store-wide unit of selling `an&
nonselling employees in which these employees have particilated...
They. assert that the alteration employees are not craftsmen of a type.
entitling them to severance from the store-wide unit.
The Employer's clothing alteration employees perform in general:
the same tasks that such employees do in other clothing and department
stores . They fit, adjust sizes , and alter men's and women's clothing-
to suit the Employer's customers. They exercise some skill in this:.
work, and some of them have had experience in the alteration depart-'
ments of other stores. The record discloses, however, that most of
the alteration employees in the women's clothing department learned'
to sew at home, and required only a short period of instruction-at the
most about 3 months-to familiarize themselves with the work as it is:
performed at the Employer's store.5
The Board has consistently approved store-wide units of selling and.
nonselling employees in a department store,6 especially where, as here,-
there has been a continuous history of collective bargaining for such
a unit.' Alteration employees have generally been included in these-
store-wide units.8 The Employer's alteration employees enjoy the-
same privileges and benefits as do all other employees at the store..
Although they are under separate immediate supervision, they are.
subject to the same general supervision, and are hired and discharged'
by the Employer's personnel department like other employees. Upon,
I In the men 's clothing department there is one tailor, who has one or more helpers..
The record is silent as to the degree of skill possessed by this tailor, other than that he
and his helpers perform the work usually performed by such employees in alteration
departments.
" Grossman Department Store, Inc., 90 NLRB No. 275; Block and Kuhl Co ., 90 NLRB
No. 258; Sears Roebuck and Company, 90 NLRB No . 152; Bloomingdale Brothers, Inc.,
81 NLRB 1252. .
7 Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated , 90 NLRB No. 229; Albert 's Incorporated,.
90 NLRB 110.
8 Grossman Department Store, Inc., supra ; Block and Kuhl Company , supra; Bond
Stores, Incorporated , 84 NLRB 667 ; J. C. Penney Company Store No. 1318 , 86 NLRB 920.
Cf. Henry C. Lytton & Company , 88 NLRB 268 . Cf. also Mandel Brothers, . Inc.,
77 NLRB 512 , and Carson Pine Scott , Company, 75 NLRB 1244.
In May Department Stores Company v. N. L. If. B., 326 U. S. 376 (1945 ), the Supreme
Court approved the Board 's finding of a unit limited to employees in the men 's busheling.
rooms. This however , was in the . absence of any bargaining history on a broader basis,
and substantial reliance was placed on the extent of employee self-organization as a_
factor. In the present case, collective. bargaining, has already proceeded on a broader
basis. Moreover , since the date of that decision , the National Labor Relations Act has
been amended to preclude reliance on extent -of-organization as.a controlling factor. These
distinctions are likewise applicable to J. L. Brandeis & Sons v . N. L. R: B ., 142 F. 2d 977"
(C. A. 8, 1944).
ROBERTSON BROTHERS DEPARTMENT STORE , INC. 273
the entire record in this case, we find that the Employer's alteration
employees are not craftsmen or entitled on any other basis to be sev-
ered from the existing store-wide unit of which they are a part. We
shall therefore dismiss the petition in Case No. 13-RC-1773.
(b) The store-wide unit:
In Case No. 13-RC-1840, all parties agree that a unit of all selling
and nonselling employees, with certain specified exclusions, is ap-
propriate. However, they disagree as to inclusion. of the following
employees :
The Employer and Intervenor seek to include the maids, char-
women, and passenger elevator operators for whom the Intervenor
was designated as representative as the result of a consent election
conducted by the Regional Director on August 15, 1950. The Pe-
titioner would exclude these employees, contending that. they are pro-
hibited by Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act 9 from participating in.
another election within the period of a year. The record discloses-
that the Employer and Intervenor, by a supplement to their store-
wide contract; have merged this group in the store-wide unit. As:
these employees may appropriately be part of such a unit, and as the
election hereinafter directed is not in the unit or subdivision in which.
the consent election was held, we shall include the maids, charwomen,.
and passenger elevator operators in the store-wide unit for the pur-
poses of this election.10
The Employer would exclude, but the Petitioner and Intervenor
would include, the home economics director in the unit. This in-
dividual demonstrates appliances in the store and in the customers"
homes. She makes calls to customers to acquaint them with the uses
of certain appliances. She spends about 80 percent of her time in
demonstrating appliances in the store and in customers' homes and
about 20 percent selling in the store when needed. She does not di-
rect the work of any other employee. We shall include the home
economics director in the unit.-
We find that the following employees at the Employer's South
Bend, Indiana, department store, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act :
All Employees, including maids, charwomen, passenger elevator-
operators, and alteration employees in the men's and women's cloth-
ing departments, but excluding office clerical employees, professional
consultant, interior decorators, display advertising department em-
ployees, seasonal extra employees, all extra employees who work less
0 Section 9 (c) (3) provides that "No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit
or any subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election,
shall have been held."
10 Westinghouse Air Brake Company, 90 NLRB No. 277.
11 Cf. Burrows & Sanborn, Inc., 81 NLRB 1308.
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'
PIONEER MERCANTILE COMPANY and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION , LOCAL UNION No. 137, AFL, PETITIONER 2 Cases Nos.
21-RC-1870 and 111-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.