Richards Red Cross Shoe Store

14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lead Operator Allen, has from 4 to 14 employees working directly under him. The lead operators assign jobs to,' instruct and responsi- bly direct the work of, these employees. Further, if an employee has a complaint about working conditions, he will take it to his lead opera- tor who, if the matter involved is relatively simple, will adjust the grievance. The lead operators are paid 10 cents more than the highest paid employees in their group. Lead Operator Allen has no special crew assigned to him but works throughout the plant whenever he is needed. He can assign work to the other lead operators and instruct them on what to do and how it should be done. Allen also is classified as "assist to supervision" in which capacity he aids the plant manager. Allen is paid 10 cents an hour more than the other lead operators. In view of the foregoing we find that the lead operators, including Allen, are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude them from the unit.' Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees including the shipping clerk and inspector employed at the Employer's Shelbyville, Indiana, plant, but excluding office clerical employees, all guards, professional employees, lead opera- tors, and other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Direction of Election. 5 Oil Csty Iron Works, 92 NLRB 1293, 1294 RICHARDS OF BOSTON , INC. D/B/A RICHARDS RED CROSS SHOE STORE and RETAIL SHOE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 173, NEW ENGLAND JOINT BOARD, RETAIL AND WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT STORE UNION , C. I. 0.,. PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-3477. September 22, 1954 Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on May 14, 1954, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 4, 1954, under the supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region, among the employees in the unit found to be appropriate. At the close of the election a tally of ballots was furnished to the parties. The tally shows that 15 ballots were cast, of which 6 were for the Peti- 110 NLRB No. 5. RICHARDS RED CROSS SHOE STORE 15 tioner, 2 were against the Petitioner, and 7 were challenged. No objec- tions to the conduct of the election were filed by either of the parties. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the re- sults of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, on July 16, 1954, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged bal- lots. In his report, the Regional Director recommended that chal- lenges to the ballots of Claude Bland, William Goodman, Beulah Lambe, and Julius Anapolsky be sustained, and that the challenges to the ballots of Nancy Reynolds, Frederick Nelson, and Kathryn Hickey be overruled. The Employer duly filed exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendations with respect to the ballots cast. by the in- dividuals considered below.' Nancy Reynolds: The Board agent challenged Reynolds' ballot be- cause her name did not appear on the eligibility list. The Employer contends, contrary to the Petitioner, that Reynolds' duties are pri- marily those of a bookkeeper, a classification specifically excluded from the appropriate unit in the Decision and Direction of Election, and that, therefore, the challenge to her ballot should be sustained. The Regional Director's report discloses that Reynolds' duties in- clude the ringing up of sales on the store cash register, the wrapping or bagging of merchandise, and making notes of the style and num- bers of shoes sold for entry on the daily inventory sheet. The Re- gional Director's report further shows that, in contrast, Greenberg, who the parties agree is a bookkeeper, is engaged almost exclusively in the performance of bookkeeping functions, which include the keep- ing of time records of employees, and the preparation of employees' daily and monthly sales reports and a monthly sales report for the entire store. Moreover, during the period Greenberg was on vacation, which was concurrent with the investigation conducted in regard to the challenged ballots, her bookkeeping functions were performed by Hickey, who neither of the parties contends is a bookkeeper, rather than by Reynolds. In view of the foregoing, it appears that Reyn- olds' duties are primarily those of a cashier rather than a book- keeper. We shall, therefore, overrule the challenge to her ballot. Beulah Lambe: The Petitioner challenged the ballot of this em- ployee on the ground that she is a part-time employee ineligible to vote. The Employer, on the other hand, contends that Lambe is a reg- ular part-time employee and, therefore, is eligible to cast a valid ballot. The Regional Director's report discloses that Lambe is a full- time employee at one of the Employer's other retail outlets located ill Cambridge, Massachusetts. In October 1953, during the course of ' As no exceptions have been filed to the Regional Director 's recommendations with re- spect to the ballots cast by Claude Bland, William Goodman, Frederick Nelson , and Kathryn Hickey, we shall adopt his recommendations. 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a strike at the Employer's Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts, store, the store involved herein, Lambe started working at this loca- tion on Monday afternoons and evenings. Between the first of the 1954 calendar year and May 8, 1954, the eligibility date established by the Direction of Election, a period of 18 weeks, Lambe worked at the Washington Street store on 11 different Mondays. Between May 8, 1954, and June 4, 1954, the date of the election, a period of 4 weeks, Lambe did not work at all at the Washington Street store. It there- fore appears that during approximately the first half of 1954, Lambe worked in this outlet store on only 11 occasions. Under these circum- stances, we find that Lambe is not a regular part-time employee, and is therefore ineligible to vote. Accordingly, we shall sustain the chal- lenge to her ballot. Julius Anapolsky: The Petitioner challenged the ballot of this employee on the ground that he is a supervisor. The Regional Direc- tor's report discloses that Anapolsky is employed in the capacity of assistant store manager. He works under the immediate supervision of the store manager, Sugarman, who the parties agree is a super- visory employee. Anapolsky, is,compensated on a different basis-than the ordinary salesmen, receiving a base salary of $90 per week plus a commission of one-eighth of 1 percent of the total amount of first floor sales, whereas ordinary salesmen have a $60 per week drawing account which is adjusted monthly against an 8 percent commis- sion on their individual sales. He does not take a regular turn with the other salesmen in serving customers, but assists them in making difficult sales, such sales being credited to the salesman's commission account. In contrast to other employees on the first floor, Anapolsky, like Store Manager Sugarman, does not punch a time clock, and is the only employee other than Sugarman who possesses a set of keys to the store.. Moreover, during. Sugarman"s absence from the store ' Ana- •poisky handles complaints and adjustments for customers, and on Monday and Wednesday nights, as well as during Sugarman's vaca- tion, is in complete charge of the first floor. Under these circum- stances, we find that Anapolsky is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall sustain the challenge to Anapolsky's ballot. In view of our determination herein concerning the validity of the challenged ballots which are the subject of the Employer's excep- tions, it appears that the Petitioner has clearly received a majority of the valid votes cast. Consequently, and inasmuch as the ballots of Reynolds, Hickey, and Nelson will not affect the results of the election, we shall not direct that these ballots be opened and counted. We, therefore, shall certify the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining rep- resentative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the De- cision and Direction of Election. WESTERN TABLE COMPANY 17 [The Board certified Retail Shoe Employees Union, Local 173, New England Joint Board, Retail and Wholesale Department Store Union, C. I. 0., as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees at the Employer's store located at 489 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts, in the unit found to be appropriate.] MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEESON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives. WESTERN TABLE COMPANY AND WESTERN PICTURE FRAME COMPANY and LOCAL 18-B, UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 13-RC-3552. September 22, 1954 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on November 18, 1953,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on De- cember 16, 1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Following the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that, of approxi- mately 165 eligible voters, 36 voted for and 122 voted against the Petitioner. There were also 3 challenged ballots and 2 void ballots. On December 21, 1953, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the election. The Regional Director investigated the objections, and on June 29, 1954, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections, in which he recommended that the Board direct a hearing on 2 of the Petitioner's 4 objections, and that the remaining objections be overruled. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendation that a hearing be conducted. The Employer also filed a brief and supporting affidavits.2 In its objections, the Petitioner alleged among other things that the Employer made promises of benefit to employees if the Petitioner lost the election and threats of reprisal against employees if the Peti- tioner won the election. The Regional Director reported that two affidavits were submitted to substantiate these objections. In one, the affiant stated that about 2 days before the election, the plant superin- tendent, in a private discussion, told him: "If the union gets in Rein- holdt [the Employer's president] will close the plant down as he has other places that can do the work." The same affiant also stated that the cabinet room foreman, on several occasions during the 2 weeks prior to the election, told him in private talks that the Employer 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director 's recommendation that two of the Petitioner's objections be overruled , this recommendation is hereby adopted. 110 NLRB No. 6. 338207-55-vol. 110 3