Value City Furniture

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 2, 2014

08-RC-120674 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 2, 2014)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
VALUE CITY FURNITURE
Employer
and Case 08-RC-120674
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 75
Petitioner
ORDER
The Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and
Direction of Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2014.

1 In denying review, we agree with the Acting Regional Director that the petitioned-for unit is
appropriate under Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83
(2011), enfd. sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir.
2013). Under Specialty Healthcare, the Board considers whether the petitioned-for employees
“are readily identifiable as a group” and share a community of interest based on traditional
community-of-interest criteria. Id., slip op. at 12. For the reasons stated by the Acting Regional
Director, we find that the Employer’s home furnishing consultants are readily identifiable as a
group and share a community of interest. We further agree with the Acting Regional Director’s
finding that the Employer has not established that, under Specialty Healthcare, the other
employees at its Toledo store share an overwhelming community of interest with the home
furnishing consultants.
Under the circumstances of this case, Member Johnson finds no need to express a view
whether Specialty Healthcare was correctly decided and should be applied here. Even in Board
precedent decided prior to that case, employees in the furniture store selling positions, such as
the petitioned-for home furnishing consultants here, have been found to be an appropriate
bargaining unit, excluding nonselling employees. See Wickes Furniture, 231 NLRB 154 (1977).
Member Johnson finds that the Employer has failed to present sufficient evidence for
distinguishing this case from Wickes.