Miller and Rhoads, Inc.

In the Matter Of MILLER AND RHOADS, INCORPORATED, EMPLOYER and WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL #322, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL :BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,1 PETITIONER Case No. 5-RC-312.-Decided October 19, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case was held before Leroy W. C. Mather, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. Miller and Rhoads, Incorporated, a Virginia corporation, is engaged in retail merchandising at Richmond, Virginia, where it main- tains a department store and three warehouses. During the year 1948, the Employer purchased material valued in excess of $13,000,000, of which approximately 95 percent was purchased from sources outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. During the same period, sales were in excess of $22,000,000, of which approximately 4 percent was shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. Contrary to the contention of the Employer, we find that the Em- ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.3 I The names of the Employer and the Petitioner appear as amended at the hearing. ' The hearing officer properly refused the Employer 's request that the Petitioner's authorization cards be produced for the purpose of checking the authenticity of signatures thereon. We have held on numerous occasions that the showing of interest is an admin- istrative matter not subject to collateral attack . Amos Molded Plastics Division of Amos Thomson Corporation, 79 N. L. R. B. 201 ; Stokely Foods, Inc., 78 N . L. R. B. 842. 'Leopold Adler Company, 82 N. L. R. B . 482; Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 1442; Thalhimer Brothers , Incorporated, 77 N. L. R., B. 1249. 86 N. L. R. B., No. 84. 625 626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.4 3. No question effecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit of all nonsupervisory employees in the Employer's Hermitage Road warehouse (hereinafter referred to as the Hermitage warehouse), excluding truck drivers and certain other employees. The Employer opposes the proposed unit, contending that it constitutes neither a well-defined department nor a recognized craft group and that it is based solely on the limited extent of the Petitioner's organization. There is no prior history of collective bargaining. As already noted, the Employer, in conjunction with its retail department store, operates three warehouses. One warehouse is lo- cated on the fourth floor of the store. The second (hereinafter re- ferred to as the Fourth. Street warehouse) is a quarter to a half mile from the store, and third, the Hermitage warehouse, is about 3 miles distant. The first two are both used primarily for storing soft goods, while the Hermitage warehouse stores heavy goods such as furniture, refrigerators, stoves; houseware "package" items, such as bathroom scales, pots, and pans; and bulk supplies for use in wrapping goods. The Hermitage warehouse receives goods directly in the case of straight loads, or indirectly when consolidated shipments composed of miscellaneous goods are sent to the store's receiving platform where they are sorted and routed by the traffic department. Bulk articles, except for store samples, are for the most part kept in this warehouse until sold, but houseware items and bulk supplies are transferred from the Hermitage stockroom to reserve stockrooms in the store.' After sale, heavier goods which are stocked in the store and Fourth Street warehouse, as well as in the Hermitage warehouse, are gathered together at the latter. warehouse and are prepared for delivery to customers. Package items are delivered by the store itself. The Hermitage warehouse is responsible for shipping returned merchan- dise to the vendors thereof. Those employees in the proposed unit who are engaged in ware- housing activities are under the jurisdiction of two company-wide departments : the wrapping, packing, and cashiering department, * The Employer contends that the Petitioner under its charter is without authority to represent the employees involved herein. This contention is without merit . Chicago Railway Equipment Company, 85 N. L. R. B. 586 ; Biggs Antique Company, 85 N. L. R. B. 554; Modern Upholstered Chair Company, Inc., 84 N. L. R. B. 95.- Some bulk supplies are also transferred to the Fourth Street warehouse. MILLER AND RHOADS, INCORPORATED 627 whose manager is stationed at the store , and the warehouse and delivery department, whose manager is stationed at the Hermitage warehouse. In many instances, the functions and job titles of em- ployees at the Hermitage warehouse in the requested unit, particu- larly those who receive and handle stock, are similar to or identical with those of employees at the store and the Fourth Street warehouse. Thus, the Petitioner's suggested unit includes Hermitage employees having counterparts at the store or. the Fourth Street warehouse, either in the two above-mentioned departments, or in the receiving department, which is located in the store and the Fourth Street ware- house. At the same time, the Petitioner desires to exclude from the unit some employees at the Hermitage warehouse who are engaged in warehousing or closely related functions, namely, drivers and helpers in the warehouse and delivery department and transfer drivers and floor porters in the salvage and supply . warehousing section of the supply purchasing department. - In addition to employees at the Hermitage warehouse who are en- gaged in warehousing functions, the Petitioner would include in the unit the employees in certain workrooms and service sections which are located at the Hermitage warehouse, namely, the major ap- pliance service, carpet and linoleum, and furniture refinishing work- rooms. These employees are under the supervision of a workrooms' superintendent, located at the store who is also in charge of a number of other workrooms at the store and the Fourth Street warehouse, including drapery and furniture upholstery. These workroom and service men located at the Hermitage warehouse are specialists, some highly skilled, whose functions and conditions of work are dissimilar to those of other employees in the proposed unit. The appliance serv- ice men and carpet and linoleum operators work at customers' prem- ises; some of the furniture refinishers work in the warehouse, but others are dispatched to customers ' homes by a service supervisor at the store to whom they are responsible. Although employees in the proposed unit, as a whole, have little face-to-face contact with employees at the Employer's other estab- lishments, employees from the store or the Fourth Street warehouse such as stockmen, shipping clerks, and craters (packers ) are some- times temporarily detailed to the Hermitage warehouse . And sales personnel from the store assist in taking inventory at the Hermitage warehouse semi-annually. One central office at the store handles personnel matters for all employees of the three warehouses and the store. They are all subject to the same labor policy and participate in the same vacation plan, discount privilege , recreation and medical program, insurance and pension benefits. 628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is clear from the foregoing facts and from the record as a whole that the Hermitage warehouse activities are closely integrated with those of the store and the other warehouses; that there is a regular interchange of merchandise between the Hermitage warehouse, the store, and the Fourth Street warehouse; that there is some exchange of employees between the Hermitage warehouse and other operations of the Employer; that the Hermitage warehouse employees perform work similar to that of a large number of employees in the store and the other warehouse; that the interests with respect to conditions of employment of all these employees are closely related. Even if the requested unit were modified to include all employees; or all ware- housing employees, at the Hermitage warehouse, it would still not in- clude all the Employer's employees who are engaged in the same or highly similar functions, nor would it correspond to any administra- tive sector of the Company's operations. We believe, therefore, that the proposed unit is too limited to constitute a separate appropriate unit. The only persuasive basis for its establishment that we can perceive is the extent of the Petitioner's organization among the Em- ployer's employees. However, the Act as amended, precludes a find- ing on this basis alone." Accordingly, we find that the unit requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate for collective bargaining purposes. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant case by Warehouse Employees Union Local #322, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. J. L. Brandeis d Sons, 82 N. L. R. B. 806; Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Company, supra. The Petitioner incorrectly contends that the decisions in Sears Roebuck and Company, 82 N. L. R. B. 985, and Thalhimer Brothers, Incorporated, 77 N. L. R. B. 1248 and 78 N. L. R. B. 916, wherein the Board found separate warehouse units appropriate, are applicable to the instant case. Apart from other important differences in the facts, the employer in the Sears case maintains only one warehouse, and the unit ruled appropriate in the Thalhimer case consists of all the employer 's warehouses.