Marshall Field & Co.

In the Matter Of MARSHALL FIELD & COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LODGE No. 126, PETITIONER Case No. 13-R-447.-Decided March 2,1948. Messrs. Ralph E. Bowers• and Lloyd H. Richmond, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer. Mr. J. J. Denny, of Chicago, Ill., for the Petitioner. Daniel D. Carmell, by Mr. Lester Asher, of Chicago, Ill., for the Intervenor. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Chicago, Illinois, on July 29, 1947, before Max Rotenberg, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi- cial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Employer and the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate. For reasons herein- after discussed the motion is denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board' makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Marshall Field & Company, an Illinois corporation having its prin- cipal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois, operates textile mills in North Carolina and Virginia, and department stores in Illi- nois and Washington. This proceeding is concerned only with the Employer's State Street, Chicago, Department Store. During 1945, the Employer purchased for resale in the State Street Store, merchan- dise valued in excess of $30,000,000, of which approximately 90 percent ' 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. 76 N. L R. B, No. 73. 479 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was received from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same year, the Employer's total sales of merchandise from this store ex- ceeded $40,000,000, of which approximately 12 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. Marshall Field Employees Union, Local 242, affiliated with the Building Service Employees' International Union, American Federa- tion of Labor, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Petitioner seeks a unit of all construction maintenance machin- ists, maintenance machinists, machinist helpers and apprentices, and the construction maintenance machinist foreman, but excluding all other employees of the Employer. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate be- cause of a long history of collective bargaining on a broader basis.2 The record reveals that the employees sought by the Petitioner are principally engaged in the repair and maintenance of machinery in the Employer's store. They are separately located, and work tinder the immediate direction of a machinist foreman. The record shows that the machinists constitute highly skilled craft employees, whom the Board on numerous occasions has established as separate units for purposes of collective bargaining.3 Under these circumstances, 2 In Matter of Marshall Field & Company, 57 N L R . B 1244, the Board established a broader unit , including the employees sought by the Petitioner. As a result of a Board election in this unit, the Intervenor was certified as the collective bargaining representative and has acted as such since 1944 , under successive bargaining contracts. 2 See Matter of Copolymer Corporation, 74 N. L. R. B. 921 ; Matter of Kaiser Co., Inc., 73 N. L . R B 931, Matter of Pittsburgh Stopper Company , 71 N. L. R. B. 1416. MARSHALL FIELD & COMPANY 481 we believe that the employees involved herein, also, may, if they so 'desire, constitute a separate unit,' notwithstanding the Board's pre- vious Chore inclusive unit determination; and the bargaining history predicated thereon s The petitioner would include the construction maintenance machin- ist foreman in the proposed unit. The employee in question is a working foreman, whose function is to distribute work among his crew, issue requisitions for parts, and handle routine matters in con- nection with the work of the machinists. He devotes approximately 10 percent of his time to the performance of the above-described tasks and the rest of his time is spent as a working inachinist. The record is clear that this employee does not exercise supervisory authority of such a nature as to require the use of independent judgment. Ac- cordingly, we find that he is not a supervisor within the ineaning of the Act and that he may properly be included within the voting group hereinafter set forth. The Board will not make any unit determination until it has first ascertained the desires of the employees involved. We shall direct that an election be held among all the construction maintenance ma- chinists, maintenance machinists, machinist helpers and apprentices, and including the construction maintenance machinist foreman at the Employer's State Street, Chicago, Department Store, but excluding all other employees of the Employer and supervisors as defined in the amended Act. If, in this election, the employees select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 7 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with Marshall Field & Company, ' In our recent decision in Matter of Carson Pine Scott cC Company, 75 N. L R B. 1244, we found inappropriate for collective bargaining purposes it departmental group of employees, consisting of fitters, tailors, tailors' helpers, etc., in a department store. In so finding, we based our decision upon the fact that this group consisted of skilled and un- skilled employees, and that others in similar departments with comparable skills were ex- cluded from this unit Thus , it was clear that such a grouping of employees lacked homo- geneity, and rendered the unit an arbitrary and artificial one inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining . In the instant case, however, the group of employees sought con- stitute a well recognized craft group. s Section 9 (b) (2) of the amended Act provides that the Board shall not "decide that any craft unit is inappropriate . . on the ground that a different unit has been established by a prior Board election , unless a majority of the employees in the proposed emit unit vote against separate representation." Mutter of The American Fork cC Hoe Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 1025 and cases cited therein. T Any participant in the election herein may upon its prompt request to , and approval thereof by , the Regional Director , have Its name removed from the ballot. 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Chicago, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this election, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 5, among the employees in the voting group described in Sec- tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 126, or by Marshall Field Employees Union, Local 242, affiliated with Building Service Employees' International Union, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.