Montgomery Ward & Co.

In the Matter Of MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, EMPLOYER and IN- TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION 104, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 21-RC-965.-Decided January 9, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a 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.' 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 Employer operates a retail store and 4 warehouses in Phoenix, Arizona, with about 210 nonsupervisory employees, of whom about one-half engage in selling. The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all employees who work in the service department and the service station department, and who work out of the farm store in connection with the delivery and servicing of farm implements, excluding all guards, supervisors, and professional employees. I The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition in this case and to set aside the Board's Decision and Direction of Election and the election held in Montgomery Ward d Company, 85 NLRB 976. Both motions are based on the contention that the units involved in the two cases are predicated on extent of organization. We hereby deny the motion with respect to the earlier case cited above, as it is clear from our Decision and Direction of Election in that case that, in determining the appropriate unit, we did not give controlling effect to extent of organization. In view of our action in the present case, as set forth below, we need not pass on the Employer's motion with respect thereto. 88 NLRB No. 8. 22 MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY 23 The Employer contends that such a unit is inappropriate and that an over-all unit including all its selling and nonselling employees at its Phoenix establishment is alone appropriate. The employees sought by the Petitioner are the following : (a) The service department employees.-These comprise certain employees at the Employer's Warehouse No. 1, adjacent to the Em- ployer's retail store, who service and repair electrical appliances and radios before or after they are sold ; an employee at the Sixteenth Street Warehouse, about 21/2 miles from the retail store, who inspects for defects, prior to shipment to the customer, refrigerators, washing machines, and stoves; and two employees at the Harrison Street Ware- house about one-half mile from the retail store, who prepare furni- ture for delivery to customers and repair furniture damaged in deliv- ery or otherwise. The foregoing employees constitute the Employer's service depart- ment and are under the immediate supervision of a service manager. (b) The service station employees.-These comprise the employees at the Employer's service station, which is physically attached to the tire sales department, who install batteries, tires, and seat covers, and who oil, grease, and wash cars. They also do some incidental selling in connection with their work. They are under the immediate super- vision of the service station manager. (c) The farm store employees.-These comprise two employees, who, under the immediate supervision of the farm store manager, deliver and service farm store equipment. The farm store is physi- cally attached to the main store. All the employees in the Employer's Phoenix store and warehouses are subject to the same working conditions, hours of work, and per- sonnel policies. There is no evidence of the degree of craft skill, if any, possessed by any of the foregoing employees. Accordingly, we cannot find on this record that they constitute a craft group. Nor does any other basis appear for establishing these employees in a separate appropri- ate unit.' We find therefore that the proposed unit is inappropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, and we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant case be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., 82 NLRB 1059; May Department Stores Company, 82 NLRB 731.