The Halle Bros. Co.

In the Matter of THE HALLE BROS. COMPANY, EMPLOYER and BROTHER- HOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, DIS- TRICT COUNCIL No. 6 (AFL), PETITIONER Case No. 8-RC-55.2.-Decided December 5, 1<949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Charles A. Fleming, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit composed solely of piano finishers. The Employer contends that the requested unit. is too limited in scope. The two piano finishers employed by the Employer wipe new pianos with polish and remove mars and scratches. Much of the Employer's piano work also involves the complete refinishing of old pianos. In connection with this work the piano finishers disassemble pianos in preparation for the complete refinishing and reassemble them after the refinishing is done. The piano finishers work primarily in the piano workroom, which is located at the rear of the piano salon in the main store building. Six other employees work in this room : four piano turners, one general repairman, and one Hammond organ repairman. These 87 NLRB No. 55. 369 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other employees aid in taking apart and reassembling pianos. The major portion of the refinishing work, however, is done at the ware- house, some 40 blocks away from the store. There the piano shell is stripped of finish by either a furniture finisher or a piano finisher ; the shell is spray painted by the furniture spray painter; and the piano is rubbed down by the furniture spray painter assisted by a furniture finisher or by a piano finisher. The piano is then returned to the store and reassembled. Occasionally, work on the finish of pianos is done in the customer's home. Such jobs are performed either by the piano finishers or by furniture finishers, depending solely on the location of that home. All 3,500 employees in the store enjoy common benefits, and the working conditions of the 600 employees in the 33 workrooms are similar. There is some history of collective bargaining among various craft employees of the Employer. These facts and the record as a whole clearly establish the close connection between the piano finishers' tasks and those of other em- ployees located in the piano workroom. It also establishes that the furniture finishers, spray painter, and piano finishers all perform por- tions of the refinishing work, of the same or similar character. The Petitioner apparently relies on the fact that 14 stores in the area have contracts covering piano finishers exclusively, whereas 48 firms which are members of the Association of Furniture Finishers have contracts covering furniture finishing departments or furniture finishers not including piano finishers. However, we note that these contracts exist in stores selling only pianos or in department stores which lack piano departments or employ no piano finishers. Such a situation is clearly distinguishable from the instant one, in which both furniture and piano finishers are employed and work together in finishing pianos. Moreover, we do not treat contract practice within a particular area as solely determinative of the unit appro- priate for bargaining.' As the unit requested arbitrarily excludes other employees who per- form identical or similar tasks and have interests similar to those requested, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappro- priate.2 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. See Bloomingdale Bros., Inc., 81 NLRB 1252, and cases cited therein. s Cannell & Chapin, Inc., 85 NLRB 887 ; Pomeroy's Inc., 76 NLRB 633 ; Carson Pine Scott & Company, 75 NLRB 1244; see also The J. L. Hudson Company, 49 NLRB 273, 275; Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., 73 NLRB 416, 418.