The Halle Bros. Co.

In the Matter of THE HALLE BROS. COMPANY, EMPLOYER and BROTHER- HOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER Case No. 8-RC-790.-Decided August 31, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Carroll L. Martin, 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 Houston and Styles]: Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) .and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all furniture finishers and piano finishers, excluding all other employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors. The Employer contends that the unit sought is inappro- priate and. that the appropriate unit is one comprising all employees of the Employer, or in the least, all employees employed in all work- rooms of the Employer. The Employer operates a retail department store and a warehouse located in Cleveland, Ohio, where it employs about 3,500 employees, over 600 of whom including the employees involved herein, are em- ployed in workrooms in various departments of the store and the warehouse ; there are 33 of these workrooms, 29 in the store and 4 in the warehouse. The unit proposed by the Petitioner would embrace approximately 12 employees. Specifically, it would include 6 inside furniture 91 NLRB No. 20. 100 THE HALLE' BROS. COMPANY 101 finishers, 2 outside furniture finishers, and 2. spray paint men all of whom work in the furniture finishing workroom at the warehouse, and 2 piano finishers who work in the piano workroom located in the store building. It will exclude 5 cabinetmakers in the furniture finishing workroom and 6 piano repairmen and 1 organ repairman who work in the piano workroom. The furniture finishers rerriove mars or scratches from furniture, repair fabric tears on upholstered furniture, repair rattan furniture, attach and polish hardware, and perform minor furniture repairs. The cabinetmakers work in a room adjoining the furniture finishing workroom, under the same supervision as the furniture finishers, where they perform minor repairs on furniture, such as repairing broken chair legs, replacing seats on dining room chairs, and repairing split veneer and molding. Major cabinet work is not performed by these employees but is contracted out to various local firms. The piano finishers work primarily in the piano workroom along with six other piano repairmen and one organ repairman, all of whom are under the immediate supervision of the piano buyer. The duties of the piano finishers are comparable to those of the furniture finishers. The duties of the piano repairmen and the organ repairman are closely .related to those of the piano finishers, most of their time being devoted to repairing pianos and aiding the piano finishers in removing the in- sides of pianos preparatory to refinishing them. All the foregoing em- ployees, including the cabinetmakers and the piano repairmen whom the Petitioner would exclude from its proposed unit, are tinder the ,general supervision of the superintendent of workrooms. They have :substantially the same working conditions, are subject to the same per- sonnel policies, and enjoy the same benefits such as discounts, profit- ,sharing plans, group insurance, and vacations as all other store and workroom employees of the Employer. The unit sought by the Petitioner is neither a departmental unit, nor a unit confined to recognized craft workers. It is a heterogeneous grouping of certain workroom employees whose working conditions and interests are substantially similar to those of other employees of the Employer whom the Petitioner would arbitrarily exclude., The ,extent of employee organization remains one of the factors to be con- sidered in determining the appropriateness of a unit. We believe, however, on the basis of the record before us, that the extent of em- 1 George Jensen, Inc., 77 NLRB 760. The Petitioner contends that the cabinetmakers whom it desires' to exclude from the 'nit are within the jurisdiction of another labor organization . The Board, however, had held that the jurisdictional inability of a union to represent certain employees is no ground for excluding them if their inclusion in the unit would otherwise be appropriate . Muskogee Dairy Products Co., 85 NLRB 520. 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployee organization would actually be the "controlling" justification for finding that the unit sought by the Petitioner is appropriate, and we are precluded by the Act, as amended, from giving it controlling effect 2 We therefore find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate, and we shall dismiss the petition.3 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 Pomeroy's, Inc., 76 NLRB 633. 3 Member Houston considers that the finishers and repairmen in this Employer 's opera- tion are sufficiently skilled workmen to permit them to vote as to whether they desire a separate unit for collective bargaining. He views his.dissenting opinion in the Montgomery Ward case, 88 NLRB 615, as quite apposite here. .