Retail Employee Relations Commission

RETAIL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSION 351 group leaders, but excluding guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.' [Text of Direction of Election7 omitted from publication.] 6 This is the identical bargaining unit which the Board found appropriate in the 1950 proceeding. 70n January 14, 1953, the Board in Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 102 NLRB 270, directed that a self-determination election be conducted among the patternmakers at the South Philadelphia Works to determine whether they desired to be represented as a separate bargaining unit or remain a part of the existing hourly paid production and maintenance unit represented by the UE. In the subsequent election they indicated that they desired to remain in the overall unit, and on February 11, 1953, the Regional Director issued a certifi- cation of results of election to such effect. The UE here contends that under the provisions of Section 9 (c) (3) no election affecting these employees can be directed at this time We reject this contention as the election herein directed is not in the unit or a subdivision of the unit in which that election was held. See Robertson Brothers Department Store, 95 NLRB 21. On September 18, 1953, the IUE moved that the name of the UE be excluded from the ballot on the ground that the record establishes that the UE will not represent in the presen- tation and processing of grievances any employees who are not members of the UE We do not find that the record supports this contention Accordingly the motion is hereby denied. RETAIL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSION, Petitioner and BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION, LOCAL NO. 64, A. F. OF L. and RETAIL CLERKS' UNION, LOCAL NO. 2, A. F. OF L. Case No. 18-RM-139. December 15, 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 Richard P. O'Connell, hearing officer. The hearing officer's r•ilings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation: Building Service Employee's Union, Local No. 64, A. F. of L., herein called Local 64, has represented employees of the Employer in the classifications involved herein since 1939. The most recent contract between the Employer and Local 64 ex- pired on April 30, 1953. In June 1953 Retail Clerks' Union, 1 At the hearing, Local 64 moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Employer is attempting to establish a "multiple employer" unit for which there is no history of direct collective bargaining between all of the members of the Employer's Association and Local 64 For the reasons indicated in the text below, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied. 107 NLRB No 97. 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local No. 2, A. F. of L., herein called Retail Clerks, which currently represents employees of the Employer inclassifica- tions other than those involved here, claimed to represent the employees represented by Local 64. On May 19, 1953, Retail Clerks withdrew its claim. On August 20, 1953, Retail Clerks reasserted its claim to represent such employees, but at the hearing, for the second time, withdrew such claim. On these facts, and also because of the unit issue between the Employer and Local 64 described below, we find that a question concerning representation exists within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit: The Employer, an association of 23 retail department and specialty stores in St. Paul, Minnesota, contends that the ap- propriate unit consists of all janitors , watchmen, matrons, window washers, and passenger elevator operators in all member stores of the multiemployer association. Local 64 contends that the unit should be confined to the 5 member stores which had signed the latest contract between the Em- ployer and Local 64 covering building service employees, and which, as stated above, expired on April 30, 1953. Local 64, however, has indicated its willingness to represent building service employees in an associationwide unit should the Board find such a unit appropriate. In 1937, the Employer P voluntarily recognized Retail Clerks as the bargaining agent of an associationwide unit covering employees in almost all classifications employed by the member stores, the principal exclusions being craft groups. Included in that unit were the building service employees herein involved. In 1939 Retail Clerks disclaimed interest in the building service employees, but has since continued to represent the other employees covered in the original contract on an associationwide basis. Since 1939, building service employees inthemember stores of the Employer have been represented continuously by Local 64. The Employer and Local 64 have negotiated 10 bargaining contracts covering such employees, which have been signed by from 3 to 9 members of the Employer, as well as by the Em- ployer and Local 64. As indicated, 5 member stores were signatories to the latest contract. Whenever contract changes were negotiated by the Employer and Local 64, all member stores were notified of such changes. In 1943, and again in 1951, the Employer, acting on behalf of all member stores of the Association, and Local 64 jointly petitioned, respectively, the War Labor Board and the Wage Stabilization Board regarding the wages of the building service employees employed in the member stores. 2 In an earlier case, the Board found that the Employer possesses sufficient authority to engage in collective bargaining on behalf of its members and is an Employer within the meaning of the Act. See Retail Employee Relations Commission, 80 NLRB 1473, 1474. RETAIL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSION 353 In the recent Seagram case, 3 which involved an issue as to the appropriateness of a multiplant unit, the Board indicated with respect to employees concerning whom there was no bargaining history that "bargaining history for one group of organized employees, although persuasive, should not in- variably control the bargaining pattern for every other group of unorganized employees." That principle is equally applicable in a case like the instant one, where a multiemployer group is concerned.' However, in the instant case, there is abargaining history with respect to the building service employees which, although indicating the one time acceptance, and nowappropri- ateness, of an associationwide unit, is nevertheless equivocal. In such a situation we are accordingly constrained to attach somewhat greater weight to the bargaining history of other organized employees. In view, therefore, of the bargaining history with respect to the employees who have in the past been represented by Retail Clerks, as well as the bargaining history of the building service employees here involved, and because Local 64 has indicated its willingness to represent building service employees on an associationwide basis, we have con- cluded that an associationwide unit is here appropriate. Except for the unit placement of watchmen, the Employer and Local 64 are in agreement as to the composition of the unit. They disagree as to the effect upon unit placement of the varying amounts of time which watchmen in the different stores devote to monitorial duties. However, without regard to the arguments of the parties in this respect, we note that there is no indication that all the watchmen involved do not perform monitorial duties regularly. Accordingly, we shall exclude watchmen from the unit.5 We find that all janitors, matrons, window washers, and passenger elevator operators employed in the retail department and specialty stores which are members of the Retail Em- ployee Relation Commission in St. Paul, Minnesota, but ex- cluding all other employees, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] SJoseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 101 NLRB 101. 4See Lownsbury Chevrolet Company, 101 NLRB 1752 5See Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383.