J. L. Blandeis & Sons

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 614 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of J . L. BRANDEIS & SONS and LOCAL No. 285 OF THE
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH
THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
1 7'
Case No. B-4760.-Decided February 15, 1943
Jurisdiction : department store retailing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: rec-
ognition refused on grounds that company was not subject to the Act and
bargaining unit sought was inappropriate ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees engaged in the altera-
tion of men's, boys' and women's clothing, with specified exclusions.
Kennedy, Holland, De Lacy & Svoboda, by Mr. Ralph E. Svoboda
and Mr. Harry R. Henatsch, of Omaha, Nebr., for the Company.
Mr. Frank Schaps, of Chicago, Ill., and Mrs. Clara Kanun, of St.
Paul, Minn., for the Union.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Local No. 285 of the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of J. L. Brandeis & Sons, Omaha, Nebraska, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an ap-
propriate hearing upon due notice before Clarence D. Musser, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Omaha, Nebraska, on January
'12, 1943. The Company and the Union appeared, participated, and
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Company filed a brief
which has been duly considered by the Board.
47 N. L. R. B., No. 82.
614
J. L. BRANDEIS & SONS 615
Upon the entire record in the case; the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
J. L. Brandeis & Sons, a Nebraska corporation, has its principal
office and place of business in Omaha, Nebraska, where-it is engaged
in, the operation of a retail department store and 2 drug stores-con-
sidered as departments of the main store. During the fiscal year end-
ing February 1, 1942, the Company's purchases for resale at its
department store amounted in value to approximately $4,799,641.00,
of which purchases about 75 percent was purchased and shipped to it
from points outside the State of Nebraska. During the same period,
the Company's sales totaled approximately $7,730,630.00, of which
about 2 percent was made to customers in States other than the State
of Nebraska. Also during this period, the Company's mail orders
amounted to approximately $121,274.00, of which about 18.8 percent'
represented mail orders going outside the State of Nebraska. The
Company estimated that, of its total sales for this period, approxi-
mately 30 to 35 percent were charge accounts, of which 8 percent by
volume or 6 percent by value represented out-of-State business. In
addition, during the year 1942 the Company caused to be delivered
through the means of a local express agency, a total of 8,900 packages
'to customers outside the State of Nebraska.
The Company does not engage in any advertising on a nation-wide
basis. The Company's Omaha store advertises in the Omaha World
Herald, a newspaper published in Omaha, Nebraska, but also with a
substantial circulation in the State of Iowa. It also advertises by radio
over 4 local 'Omaha stations. In addition it advertises in the Non
Pareil, a newspaper published in Council Bluffs, Iowa. As of January
1943, the Company employed approximately 984 employees.
The Company contends that substantial purchases of goods from
out-of-State sources does not confer jurisdiction upon the Board and
that the out-of-State sales are not of sufficient quantity nor of such
a nature as to change the essential local character of the business of the
Company's Omaha store. On the basis of the facts set forth above,
we find the contentions of the Company to be without merit, and con-
clude that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.'
1 See National Labor, Relations Board v. Fainblatt , 306 U. S. 601 ; Suburban Lumber Co.
v. National Labor Relations Board, 121 F (2d) 829 (C. C. A. 3), cert. denied 62 S Ct 364,
enforcing as modified Matter of Suburban Lumber Company and International Brotherhood
of Teanistets, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 676, 3 N. L.
R. B. 194; Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co . et at. V. National Labor Relations
Board, 101 F. (2d) 841, (C. C. A. 4) ;,National Labor Relations Board v. Kudile , 130 F. (2d)
'615, (C. C. A. 3), cert. denied 63 S. Ct. 436 (January 4, 1943), enforcing Matter of
Rudolf and Charles Kudile, Co-partners doing business under the name of Kudile Bros.
Hasbrouck heights Dairy and Milk Drivers , Employees Local Union No. 680, A. F. of L.,
^ 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No. 285 of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America is
a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On May 23, 1941, and on a number, of subsequent occasions continu-
ing up,to the date of the hearing, the Union and the Company held a
series of conversations with respect to the Union's request for recog-
nition as bargaining representative of the Company's employees. On
each occasion, however, the Company denied that it was subject to the
Act and further claimed that the bargaining unit sought by the Union
was inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The, statement of a Field Examiner, introduced in evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of the employees of the Company within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that the employees engaged"in the alteration
of men's, women's and boys' clothing in the Company's Omaha store
excluding all supervisory employees having the right to hire and
discharge, constitute an appropriate unit. The Company, while
agreeing to the exclusions requested by the Union," urges a store-wide
unit of all employees of the Company.
In support of its contention, the Company points to the following
facts : that there is a centralization of management and a single labor
policy with respect to matters affecting all employees of the Com-
pany's store; that the functions of the various departments are inter-
dependent; that all employees observe the same hours, are paid on the
Y
28 N. L R. B. 116. ' See also Matter of The Boston Store of,Chicago, Inc. and Department
Store Employees Union, Local 291 of Chicago, Illinois, affiliated with 0. 1. 0., 37 N. L. R. B.
1140; Matter of The May Department Stores Company, doing business as The May
Company and Retail Clerks International Protective Association, Retail Shoe Salesmen,
Local Union No. 420, A. F. of L., 39 N. L R. B. 471
2 The-Field Examiner reported that the Union had submitted 5 ledger cards which recorded
the dues payments of 5 employees from April 2, 1941, to the date of inspection ; also 13
authorization cards, of which 11 dated July 1942, and 2 undated, appeared to bear genuine
original signatures. The Field Examiner further reported that he had compared the records
and authorization cards with the Company pay roll of October 15, 1942, and that of the 18
signatures which appear to be genuine and original, 13 were the names of persons whose
names appear on the said pay roll which contains the names of 26 employees in the alleged
appropriate, unit.
i Both the Union and the Company agreed and we find, that the manager and assistant
manager of the women's alteration department and The head tailor in the men's alteration
department should be excluded horn the appropriate unit as supervisory employees.
.J. L.. BRANDEIS & SONS 617
same weekly basis, and have the same rights in matters'of vacations,
group insurance, and other company benefits and privileges; and-that
the employees of the various departments have frequent contact with
one another by means of sports and other activities. On the other
-hand, employees are usually assigned to particular departments and
are not commonly interchanged except to fill vacancies due to sickness.
Moreover, it appears that the employees involved, namely tailors,
pressers, seamstresses and fitters, are journeymen-tailors with duties
distinct and different from those of any other employees in the store.
They are generally considered as belonging to a skilled trade, having
interests separate from those of the sales force, stock force, floor work-
ers force, and many of the other service department employees in the
several departments maintained by department stores. Because of
this distinction, the Union limits its membership to skilled alteration
hands and their apprentices.
While the Company has no collective bargaining agreements, the
Union has attempted to bargain for the men's alteration department
as far back as May of 1941, at which time a proposed contract was sub-
mitted to the Company by the Union. In addition, it appears that the
Union has numerous bargaining agreements with other concerns cov-
ering similar employees, including contracts with two other stores in
Omaha, Nebraska. There is, moreover, nothing in the record to indi-
cate that any other labor organization has succeeded in organizing
the other departments of the Company.
From the foregoing facts, and upon the basis of the entire record,
we are of the opinion that the unit proposed by the Union is appro-
priate for the- purposes of collective bargaining .4 We find, accord-
ingly, that all employees of the Company engaged in the alteration of
;men's, boys' and women's clothing (comprising alteration department-
36, and department 82), excluding supervisory employees having the
right to hire and discharge, the manager and assistant manager of
alteration department 36 (the women's alteration department), and
the head tailor in department 82 (the men's alteration department),
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
! See Matter of May Department Stores, doing business as The May Company and Retail
Shoe Salesmen Local Union 420, A. F of L, 39 N. L. R. B. 471; Matter of Marshall Field
d Company and Department Store, Loft and Factory Bueldind Service Employees' Council
of the Building Service Employees' International Union, A. F. of L., 36 N. L. R. B. 748.
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
herein , subject to the limitations and additions -set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with J. L. Brandeis &
,Sons, Omaha, Nebraska, an, election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, acting in, this matter
,as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article, III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among' the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
employees who have since quit or been, discharged for cause, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented by Local No. 285,
_Amalgamated- Clothing Workers of America, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of, collective
bargaining.