J. C. Penney Co., Inc.

J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. 243 the electricians may occasionally do minor nonelectrical work, and the electronic technicians at times operate an electronic production machine, it is clear that the normal range and type of duties performed by these employees are within the confines of the electrical craft. Upon the entire record, the Board finds that all electricians, appren- tices, and electronic technicians at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wis- consin, plant, excluding the electrical department .foreman, the assistant chief electrician, office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended, comprise a highly skilled, homogeneous, and identifiable craft group who may constitute an appropriate bargaining unit not- withstanding their previous inclusion in a larger bargaining group.' However, we shall not make any unit determination as to these em- ployees until we have first ascertained their desires in the matter. If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described above, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 See Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Concentrating Company, et al., 89 NLRB 243, and cases cited therein. J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL AssoCIATION, LOCAL No. 1119, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 20-RC- 14.39. November 30, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis S. Penfield, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free front 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 Reynolds and Styles]. 97 NLRB No 45. 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A 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. 4. The parties agree that any unit found appropriate should include selling and nonselling employees, excluding confidential employees, guards, watchmen, managers, assistant managers, and all other super- visors. The only unit issue raised in this case relates to the scope of the appropriate unit. The Petitioner seeks a unit confined to employees of the Employer. The Employer contends that, in view of past bargain- ing history, a separate unit for its employees is not appropriate, but that the appropriate unit should include employees of all members of Marin County Employers Council, of which the Employer is a member. In 1947, a group of 16 employers owning retail stores in Marin County, California, formed Marin County Employers Council, here- inafter called the Council. The Council joined California Association of Employers, hereinafter called the Association. Before 1947 the Petitioner had bargained with employer-members of the Council, on an individual basis. On July 1, 1947, the Petitioner and the Associa- tion, acting as authorized representative of the Council, executed a bargaining agreement covering employees of all employer-members of the Council. On April 23, 1948, the Petitioner informed the Association that it desired certain changes in the 1947 contract. On July 8, 1948, after a short strike, the Petitioner and the Association entered into a new contract- which covered employees of 14 of the original 16 employer- members of the Council. On July 29, 1948, the Petitioner and the Association entered into an agreement for a consent election covering employees of all members of the Council. This election was held on September 18, 1948, and there- after the Petitioner obtained authorization to negotiate a union-shop agreement. In March and April 1949, the Petitioner and the Associa- tion met, but did not negotiate a new agreement. In June 1949, the employer-members of the Council for the first time executed powers of attorney designating the Association as its representative. On July 2,1949, the Petitioner called a strike at Albert's Department Store. Albert's was at that time a member of the Council and had been covered by the earlier agreements covering employees of council members. On July 6, 1949, the Association filed two petitions for J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. 245 certification with the Board,' alleging in Case No. 20-RM-44 as an appropriate unit all employees of Albert's, and alleging in Case No. 20- RM-43 as an appropriate unit all employees of the remaining members of the Council. At or about that time, Albert's withdrew from the Council. Thereafter, an individual filed a decertification petition in Case No. 20-RD-35, alleging as the appropriate unit all employees of the Council, including employees of Albert's. • At the consolidated hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation, agreeing that a consent election would be conducted in a unit comprising employees of all members of the Council excluding Albert's, and it was further agreed that the petitions insofar as they covered Albert's would proceed to hearing and be left to the decision of the Board.2 On October 5, 1949, pursuant to the consent stipulation, an election was conducted among employees of all members of the Council except Albert's, and the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of ballots. On January 18, 1950, the Board certified the results of the election, setting forth that the Petitioner had been decertified as the bargaining representative of employees of members of the Council. Thereafter the Petitioner and at least six former members of the Council executed separate employer agreements covering the latter's employees. At least six of the original members of the Council have terminated the Association's authority to represent them in joint negotiations. There is no multiemployer contract now in effect between the Petitioner and member employers of the Council. Bargaining on an individual-em- ployer basis existed before the formation of the Council. Some indi- vidual members of the Council are again bargaining on an individual- employer basis. Under these circumstances, we find that, despite the history of bargaining on a multiemployer basis, the proposed unit lim- ited to employees of the Employer is appropriate .3 We find that all selling and nonselling employees at the Employer's San Rafael, California, dry goods store, including regular part-time employees, but excluding special part-time employees, confidential em- ployees, guards, watchmen, managers, assistant managers, and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] I Marro County Employers Council, a ffiliated with California Association of Employers, et al, 87 NLRB 296. 2 On November 20, 1949, the Board directed an election among Albert's employees to determine whether the Petitioner should be decertified . Marin County Employers council, affiliated with California Association of Employers, et al, supra. On January 18, 1950, the Board certified the Petitioner as bargaining representative of employees at Albert's San Rafael, San Anselmo, and Mill Valley Stores. 8 Jerry Fairbanks, Inc , 93 NLRB 898 ; Norcal Packing Co., 76 NLRB 254. ; cf. P. E. Ashton Company, et al., 93 NLRB 1286. 986209-52-vol. 97---17