Silverstein Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1074 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
over-all management of Kauai is concerned no change was effected-
Nor do we believe the transfer from McBryde 's payroll to that of
Kauai effected any substantial changes in the status of the employees
involved . They perform the same duties , enjoy the same benefits and
privileges , and are subject to the same general supervision as hereto-
fore . Under all the circumstances , the Board finds that the separate
unit of Kauai employees requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate 72
We shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
12Fotd Motor Company, 92 NLRB 188; Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company,
85 NLRB 131, Convofdated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Co., 77 NLRB 300. See
alvo IW'est TIda4 Util+hev Company, Inc, 88 NLRB 192 But cf Fruehauf Trailer Co.,.
87 NLRB 589
SILVERS'PEIN BROTI [ ERS, INC ., D/B/A SILVERSTEIN' s ANCHOR STOVE &
FUIINIT[TRE Co., D/Bj A ANCHOR FURNITURE STORE, AND INDIANA
FUIINnului CO., D/B/A INDIANA FURNITURE STORE 1 and RETAIL
CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL UNION No. 983, AFL,
PETI'17ONL'R. Case No..35-UA-10If5. March 30, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon an amended petition duly filed, a hearing was held before
William A. McGoNvaii, 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].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner is the exclusive bargaining representative of em-
ployees of the Employers as provided in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. The petition alleges, and we find, that more than 30 percent of
the employees in the unit claimed by the Petitioner desire to authorize
the Petitioner to make an agreement with the Employers requiring
membership in the Petitioner as a condition of employment in such
unit.
1 The petition and other formal papers are hereby amended to show the names of all
the Employers involved in this proceeding
93 NLRB No. 179
SILVERSTEIN BROTHERS , INC. 1075
The Employers currently recognize the Petitioner, and we find that
no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employers in the unit sought by the Petitioner.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks a union-shop election in a unit which is de-
scribed in its petition as including "All sales employees engaged in
selling merchandise direct to customers in the employers stores which
are located in the city of Terre Haute, Indiana." 2 The Employers
contend that such a multiemployer unit is inappropriate.
The Employers here involved are separate corporate entities en-
gaged in the retail sale of furniture. All three corporations are
closely held and subject in a large degree to common control, as
shown by the fact that six persons, all members of the same family,
own the bulk of the corporations' stock, and that four of those indi-
viduals are officers in the three Companies, one is an officer in two of
the Companies, and the other holds office in one of the Companies.
However, each Employer maintains for its store in Terre Haute,
Indiana, separate books, separate payrolls, and separate bank ac-
counts; files separate tax returns; has its own bookkeeper; and pays
for its own purchases. It further appears that the employees of the
Employers are under separate supervision,' are not interchanged, and
are physically separated from each other.
The separability of the employees of the Employers for bargaining
purposes has been recognized by the fact that since about 1937, when
collective bargaining between them began, the Employers and the
Petitioner have executed separate contracts only. The last contract
between each Employer and the Petitioner is dated September 1, 1948,
and, as amended on June 16, 1949, is currently in effect.4 - The Peti-
tioner, in support of its unit request, appears to rely largely on the fact
that these agreements have identical provisions. However, the record
shows that this is due to the fact that the contracts were the result
of negotiations with the Petitioner conducted by an employer associa-
2 In 1948, and again in 1949, the Petitioner filed petitions requesting union-shop
elections among employees of each Employer . The 1948 petitions were dismissed by the
Regional Director , and the dismissal in each case was sustained by the Board, in an
unpublished decision, on the ground that a question concerning representation was present.
The 1949 petitions were withdrawn by the Petitioner , after consent election agreements
had been executed -
8 At their respective locations in Terre Haute , which are within 2 blocks of one another,
the Employers employ four , three, and two floor salesmen . Each of the Employers ' stores
has a manager with authority to hire and fire employees . However, the managers
generally consult with a corporate officer before exercising that authority.
4 All these contracts were signed on behalf of the Employers by Julian L. Silverstein,
who is vice president and treasurer of Silverstein Brothers , Inc., vice president of Anchor
Stove & Furniture Co., and secretary of Indiana Furniture Co.
At the time of the hearing , separate collective bargaining agreements were also in
effect between the Employers and another labor organization representing employees of
the Employers.
1 076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion on behalf of its members, including these three Employers.5 As
it is thus clear that the contracts in question are not the result of col-
lective bargaining on a inultiemployer basis by the Employers them-
selves, we find the circumstance relied upon by the Petitioner to be
without significance.
Upon the basis of the above facts, and the entire record, including
the absence of collective bargaining on a multiemployer basis involving
these three Employers, we are of the opinion that the extent of integra-
tion between the three Companies is insufficient to warrant a single
unit composed of employees of all the Companies. We shall therefore
dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in the instant case be,
and the same hereby is, dismissed.
In Retail Merchants Association of Terre Haute, Indiana, 83 NLRB 112, the Board
found inappropriate a unit embracing employees of the members of that association
HAMILTON'S LTD., PETITIONER, and SAN DIEGO COUNTY FEDERATED
TRADES AND LABOR COUNCIL AND ITS AFFILIATES : COOKS AND
WAITRESSES, LOCAL 402; BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 102;
OFFICE WORKERS, LOCAL 139; BUTCHER WORKMEN, LOCAL 229;
BAKERY WORKERS, LOCAL 315; TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 542; RETAIL
CLERKS, LOCAL 1222. Case No. 21-JIM-163. March 30, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Daniel J. Harrington,
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 Murdock and Styles].
The hearing officer p.opeily denied the motion of the Unions that the heaiing be
adjourned on the ground that the Boaid, not the Regional Director, is empowered to
conduct the investigation of petitions and decide if there is reasonable cause to believe
that a question of representation exists The preliminary determination of whether these
is, reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation exists is an investigative
phase of the Board's work which the Board may properly vest in the Regional Duector
just as the Board may dele,ate any duties except those which Icquvc the Board's exercise
of its final adjudicatory authority The Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Company,
78 NLRB 1043 Also see Poans v International 1'itpogiaphieal Union, 76 F Supp
881, at 887
In view of our finding below on the question of the assertion of jurisdiction wherein
we rely only on the Respondent's shipments out of State, Nse find it unnecessary to pass
upon the hearing officer's revocation of that part of the subpoena duces tecuin requested
by the Unions which related to the out-of-State purchases made by the Respondent
93 NLRB No. 193.