Callahan-Cleveland, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1355 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

CALLAHAN-CLEVELAND, INC. 1355
,on which it has bid. Laid-off employees have recall rights in ac-
,cordance with their seniority standing, provided their layoff does
not exceed 1 year.
Petitioner urges that the Board select February 23, 1957, as the
eligibility date, apparently because on that date the Employer em-
ployed approximately the same number of employees as it will employ
if successful in its contract bid. We see no reason for departing from
our usual practice, under which eligibility is determined on the basis
of the payroll period immediately preceding the Direction of Election.
However, in the event that the Employer's operations have closed
down at the time of issuance of this Decision and Direction of
Election, we hereby amend the Direction of Election to provide for
an election among the employees in the appropriate unit who are
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of issuance of the notice of the election at a time when the Regional
Director determines that the Employer has resumed operations with
a representative number of employees. In either event, eligibility
of laid-off employees shall be determined in accordance with our usual
policy that such employees who enjoy a reasonable expectancy of
future employment are eligible to vote.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Callahan-Cleveland, Inc. and Retail , Wholesale and Department
Store Union , District 65, AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-
3152. Jwne 9,1958
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 W. R. Griesbach,
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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, hereinafter referred to as Cleveland, asserts that
its operations have insufficient impact upon commerce to warrant as-
serting jurisdiction. Petitioner contends that Cleveland and another
corporation, T. & F. Callahan, Inc., should be treated as a single Em-
ployer for jurisdictional purposes and that as both together meet the
Board's retail store standard, the Board should assert jurisdiction
over Cleveland.
120 NLRB No. 168.
1356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record discloses that members of the Callahan family own all
of the stock and are the officers and directors of T. & F. Callahan, Inc.,
a New York corporation, hereinafter referred to as Callahan, which is
engaged in the retail sale of women's shoes, handbags, and accessories.
Callahan owns the major portion of the stock of the Employer, Cleve-
land, an Ohio corporation, which is also engaged in the retail sale of
women's shoes, handbags, and accessories at the Cleveland, Ohio,
Bonwit-Teller retail store. Cleveland has the same officers and direc-
tors as Callahan. Both Cleveland and Callahan occupy the same of-
fices in New York City where merchandising policies of both corpora-
tions are established and where prices of items sold in the Cleveland
store and commissions of Cleveland employees are fixed. Although
the manager of Cleveland purchases some items directly from the
manufacturer, the bulk of the items sold by Cleveland are purchased
'in New York by members of the Callahan family. Cleveland makes a
daily report of sales to the New York office and the payroll for em-
ployees of Cleveland is computed in that office. There has been no
collective bargaining with any labor organization at Cleveland. There
is no interchange of personnel, between the two corporations. The
manager of Cleveland has the, authority to hire and discharge em-
ployees and has general charge of labor relations at the Cleveland
store. The employees of both corporations are covered by the same
group life insurance plan.
In view of the common ownership and functional integration of
Cleveland and Callahan, and the identity of the officers and directors
with the' resulting overall common control of both corporations, we
find that Cleveland and Callahan constitute a single employer for
jurisdictional purposes.'
As Callahan annually receives goods directly from outside the State
of New York valued in excess of $1,000,000, we find that the Employer,
Cleveland, is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein 2
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.3
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 parties agree that the appropriate unit consists of all selling
and nonselling employees at the Employer's leased department in the
'Empire Milling Company, 117 NLRB 1782, 1783 ; Youngstown Tent and Awning Com-
pany, 110 NLRB 835 , 836. We deem the case of American Furniture Company, Inc, 116
NLRB 1496 , cited in the Employer's brief , to be distinguishable on its facts from the
instant case.
2 The T. H. Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732 , 1735, 1736.
3 The Employer refused to admit that Petitioner is a labor organization . As the record
discloses that it exists for the purposes of bargaining collectively on behalf of its mem-
bers concerning wages, hours, and other conditions of employment , we find that it is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Wyman Gordon Co., 117 NLRB 75.
CALLAHAN-CLEVELAND, INC. 1357
Cleveland, Ohio, Bonwit-Teller store. However, the Petitioner, con-
trary to the Employer, would exclude certain employees, discussed
below, as temporary or "part-time" employees.
Fisher, who is employed elsewhere as a regular full-time employee,
is employed by Cleveland as a part-time salesman for 8 hours each
Saturday, unless he is previously notified by the store manager that
no work is available. In the period of his employment prior to the
hearing herein, he has worked only 20 out of 40 Saturdays. In view
of the foregoing, we find that Fisher is a casual employee such as the
Board uniformly excludes,' and we shall exclude him.
The Petitioner would exclude Charles, a sales-check writer. The
record shows that one or two sales-check writers are hired during the
semiannual sales, which are held in January and February, and July
and August of each year. Each works intermittently during these
months, for a total of about 3 weeks, writing sales checks for items
sold by salesmen. In view of the limited period of their employment,
we do not believe that the sales-check writers have sufficient com-
munity of interest with the other employees to warrant including them
in the unit. We shall, therefore, exclude them.'
Heil, the part-time stock boy, assists the regular stock boy in ar-
ranging shoes and making them available to salesmen, and returning
shoes left on the selling floor to the stockroom. He has the same
duties and supervision as the full-time stock boy. The store man-
ager stated that during the month prior to the hearing Heil worked
a total of 13 days, that he was expected to work 1 or 2 days a week
during the next few weeks, and that there would be work available
for him throughout the year. We find that he is a regular part-time
employee and will include him.5
The petitioner would also exclude White, a salesman. As the
record discloses that he was hired as a full-time employee prior to
the hearing and that the Employer expects to retain him in that
capacity for an indefinite period in the future, we shall include him
in the unit.
We find that the following employees consitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act:
All selling and nonselling employees at the Employer's Cleveland,
Ohio, store, including office clerical employees and the part-time stock
boy, but excluding the sales-check writers, the part-time salesman,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
• Connecticut Packing Co., Inc., 120 NLRB 150.
e Montgomery Ward f Co., 110 NLRB 256, 258; United States Gypsum Company, 81
NLRB 182, footnote 12.
e Krambo Food Stores, Inc., 119 NLRB 369.