The Johnson Bros. Furniture Co.

246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE JOHNSON BROS. FURNITURE CO., PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELP- ERS OF AMERICA, DISTRIBUTION & WAREHOUSE WORKERS LOCAL #22, AFL THE JOHNSON BROS. FURNITURE CO., PETITIONER and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL #633, AFL. Cases Nos. 8-RM-49 and 8-RM-50. November 30, 1951 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, 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. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America, Distribution & Warehouse Workers Local #22; AFL, herein called the Teamsters, and Retail Clerks Interna- tional Association, Local #633, AFL, herein called the Retail Clerks, are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. On August 13, 1951, representatives of the Teamsters and the Retail Clerks submitted to the Employer's president, for his signa- ture, contracts which provided, inter alia, for exclusive recognition of these unions as representatives of employees of the Employer within their respective jurisdictions. The Employer's president ad- vised the union representatives that he would examine the contracts. On the same day, picketing began at the Employer's premises. The picket signs bore the name of the Retail Clerks and stated that the Employer "does not employ all union employees. Please patronize union stores." On August 27, 1951, the Employer filed the instant petitions. Shortly thereafter, at an informal conference conducted by a Board agent, union representatives appeared only to submit a written state- ment, dated September 6, 1951, alleging that their picketing was to advertise the fact that the Employer did not employ union help, and that they had made no request which required or warranted the services of the Board. The picketing continued for about 5 weeks, when it was halted by a State court injunction. After being served 97 NLRB No. 37. 1 QUINCY STEEL CASTING CO., INC. 247 with notice of hearing herein, the unions notified the Regional Direc- tor that they would not appear, and that their position was still that set forth at the informal conference. The unions did not enter formal appearances at the hearing, although a representative of each was present. It is apparent that the unions, by their proposed contracts of Aug- ust 13, demanded recognition by the Employer as exclusive bargain- ing representatives. While the Board has held that such a demand is insufficient basis for an employer petition if followed by a clear and unequivocal disclaimer of interest by a union," no such disclaimer was effected here. . Neither the fact that the placards carried by the Union in connection with the picketing did not demand recognition, their statement of September 6, nor their failure formally to appear in this proceeding, is inconsistent with a continuing demand for recognition? Accordingly, we find that questions affecting commerce exist con- cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find that the following employees of the Employer at its Toledo, Ohio, store constitute separate units appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : 1. All warehouse employees, excluding office and sales employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. All salespersons, excluding warehouse and office employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act .3 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] ' Hamilton's Ltd., 93 NLRB 1076. s Cf. Kimel Shoe Company, 97 NLRB 127 ; Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Walla Walla, Washington, 80 NLRB 1063. 8 The units found appropriate are substantially in accord with those covered by the unions in their proposed contracts and requested by the Employer herein. While the Retail Clerks' proposed contract excluded employees spending more than three-quarters of their time in nonselling occupations , there are no employees presently so employed, and we therefore do not pass upon the unit placement or voting eligibility of such employees. QUINCY STEEL CASTING Co., INC. and INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS AND FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA , AFL, LOCAL 106. Case No. 1-CA-943. December 3,1951 Decision and Order On July 31, 1951, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- 97 NLRB No. 51.