L. B. Spear and Co.

L. B. SPEAR AND COMPANY 687 WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No. 1491, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment , and other con- ditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All maintenance , repair, and service employees employed as truck and tractor mechanics (excluding supervisors , guards , partsmen, and professional employees as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and all other employees). WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No. 1491, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, or to refrain from any or all such conduct , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized In Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. BOISE IMPLEMENT COMPANY, Employer. Dated ................ By............................... .............................................................. (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. L. B. SPEAR AND COMPANY and RETAIL CLERKS INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1115 E, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-5817. August 11, 1953 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 I. L. Broadwin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. I 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, Styles, and Peterson ]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Petitioner seeks a single unit of certain employees of Ludwig Bauman & Company, hereinafter called Bauman, and Spear & Company, hereinafter called Spear. Bauman, a New York corporation, and Spear, a New Jersey corporation, are both engaged in the retailing of furniture, house furnish- ings, clothing, and jewelry in New York City. 1The petition and other formal papers are hereby amended to show the correct name of the Employer. 106 NLRB No. 118. 688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In 1952, Spear acquired 92 percent of Bauman's stock, and the two corporations together are now commonly referred to as L. B. Spear and Company. Thereafter, although the corpo- rate identity of each corporation was preserved, there was a complete merger and integration of the personnel and opera- tions of the two corporations.2 The officers and directors of both corporations are identical. The treasurer has direct supervision over the department heads of both corporations. There has been an intermingling of all employees of both corpo- rations, with no distinction as to the work they formerly per- formed. Spear's office-clerical employees were brought to Bauman's main office and merged with them, and now one main office services both corporations.' Sales credits for both corporations are handled from this main consolidated office.4 There has been an intermingling of accounting, purchasing, sales, credit, and advertising operations. In view of the foregoing, we find that Bauman and Spear together constitute a single Employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.5 We further find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. American Federation of Office Employees, Local 20940, AFL, herein called Local 20940, contends that its October 24, 1951, agreement with Bauman is a bar to the instant proceed- ing., This agreement will not expire until June 14, 1954. The Petitioner asserts that as the employees covered by this con- tract are no longer separately employed, but have been merged into a single group with the employees of Spear, operating as a single entity, the contract should not bar this petition.' The 2 The corporate identities are being kept separate for accounting purposes and economy reasons. 8 Prior to the merger of the two corporations, Spear's had approximately 160 office- clerical employees, 90 percent of whom worked at its central office, and the remainder in its four stores. Bauman, prior to the merger, had approximately 470 office-clerical em- ployees, about 85 percent of whom worked at its main office , about 5 percent in its stores, and about 10 percent in its warehouse. Since the merger, there are 525 office-clerical employees employed by the two corporations together. 4The decentralized individual store handling of credit used by Spear before the merger has been abandoned, and in its stead a centralized system used by Bauman has been sub- stituted. 5 Cf. Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 98 NLRB 493; National Shirt Shops of Florida, Inc., 97 NLRB 924, Columbus-Celina Coach Lines, 97 NLRB777; Black Broiler, Inc., and Dixie Concrete Products Company, Inc., 96 NLRB 1024, L. W. Hayes, Inc., and Hayes Transit Mix, 91 NLRB 1408. 6 The agreement with Bauman covers the following employees: All office employees in the business offices, stock employees, packers, wrappers, and markers in the men's fur- nishing, and men's clothing department and the fashion shops. 7 The Petitioner is willing to abandon the unexpired term of its agreement dated April 10, 1953, with the Furniture Employers Group, consisting of 11 retail furniture dealers. Spear was a member of the Group, but Bauman was not. This agreement was to be effective until May 1, 1957. L. B. SPEAR AND COMPANY 689 Employer wishes to have an election at this time because it does not want to bargain with two unions whom it contends represent identical categories of employees working in one group, at the same place. The Employer states that the con- tracts are difficult to administer because of the merger of personnel. As set forth in section 4, below, the Board finds that only a single unit of all of the Employer's office-clerical employees is appropriate. We find that as a result of the merger of operations and personnel of Bauman and Spear, the unit covered by the contract between Bauman and Local 20940 no longer exists. We view the merger of the two corporations as compa- rable to an entirely new operation. Under these circumstances, we believe that sound and stable labor relations will best be served by allowing the employees in the reconstituted unit to determine for themselves the labor organization which they now desire to represent them. Accordingly, we find that the 1951 contract between Bauman and Local 20940 is not a bar to a present determination of representatives.8 A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting essentially of the Employer's office-clerical employees. Local 20940 and Office Employees International Union, Local 153, AFL, hereinafter called Local 153, contend that the unit described in the Octo- ber 24, 1951, contract between Bauman and Local 20940, is the appropriate unit. If, however, the Board rinds that a unit consisting of the employees of both Bauman and Spear is the appropriate bargaining unit, both Local 20940 and Local 153 agree with the unit requested by the Petitioner. The Employer agrees that the Petitioner's proposed unit is appropriate. In the light of the facts set forth above, on the basis of which we have found that Bauman and Spear constitute a single Employer within the meaning of the Act, we find that only a unit including the employees of both corporations is appro- priate here.' Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All office-clerical employees of Ludwig Bauman & Company and Spear & Company, now known as L. B. Spear and Company, employed in its business and store offices located in New York City, including stock employees, packers, wrappers, and markers in the men's furnishing and men's clothing depart- ments and fashion shop in the Eighth Avenue, Jamaica, and Bronx stores, auditing and sales analysis employees, mail BCf. Michigan-California Lumber Company, 96 NLRB 1379; Greyhound Garage of Jack- sonville, Inc., 95 NLRB 902; The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, 87 NLRB 1555 9Cf. Gordon's Jewelry Co. of Baton Rouge, Inc., 105 NLRB 709; Stineway Drug Co., Inc , 102 NLRB 1630; Coburn Catering Company, 100 NLRB 1133; Malden Electric Company, 96 NLRB 517; The Muller Company, Ltd., 98 NLRB 737; Andrews Company, 98 NLRB 11. 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD clerks, graphotype, multilith, stock records and merchandise department clerks, addressograph service clerks, credit clerks, collection clerks, stenographers, telephone operators, cashiers , file clerks , bookkeepers , tag clerks , and messengers, but excluding all other employees, professional and confiden- tial employees, and supervisors. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CONCRETE HAULERS, INC., WAMIX, INC., AND RED-D-MIX, INC. and DALLAS GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 745, AFL. Case No. 16-CA-408. August 12, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On November 17, 1952, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of the complaint with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondents and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. On January 21, 1953, the Board issued an order reopening the record and on February 10, 1953, a corrected order re- opening the record , for the purpose of enabling the parties to present certain evidence deemed relevant to the issues in the case. Pursuant to these orders, a further hearing was held before Trial Examiner Plost. On May 15, 1953, the Trial Examiner issued his Supplemental Intermediate Report, a copy of which is attached hereto, recommending that the Board adopt in full the recommendations contained in the Intermediate Report. The Respondents filed exceptions to the Supplemental Inter- mediate.Report and a supporting brief. The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearings and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the Supplemental Inter- mediate Report , the exceptions and briefs , and the entire rec- ord in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, 1 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 Murdock, Styles, and Peter- son]. 106 NLRB No. 117.