M. S. Ginn & Co.

112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Rela4ns. Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that; WE wiLL bargain collectively upon request with Local 639, ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse men and Helpers of America, AFL, and District Lodge No7, - International Association of Machinists, AFL, (Local 144), jointly, as the exclusive representative of employees in the br- gaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, wa es, hours, and other conditions of employment, and, if an under- standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is : 11 All employees engaged in maintaining, repairing, and sere c- ing motor vehicle equipment at our automobile and truck ren all establishments at 2316 Georgia Avenue, N. W.; 125 Q Stre t, 'N. E,; and 1709 L Street, N. W., in the District of Columbia, and at the Washington National Airport, including auto and truck mechanics, body and fendermen, tiremen, washers, porters, serf- icemen, and helpers, but excluding office employees , clerical em- ployees, guards, watchmen , and working foremen and other s$- pervisors as defined in the Act. NATIONAL TRUCK RENTAL COMPANY, Employer. I Dated-- -------------- By------------------------------------ (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereo , and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. M. S. Ginn & Company and Warehouse Employees Union, Loca No. 730, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs Warehousemen and lElelpers of America, AFL, Petitioner., Case No. 5-RC-1658. September 19,1955 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 William C. Humphrey, Sr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing.-are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 114 NLRB No. 25. M. S. GINN & COMPANY 113 Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer operates a warehouse and 2 stores in the District of Columbia and 1 store in Alexandria, Virginia, in the retail sales of stationery, office furniture, and other office supplies. The Petitioner seeks to represent the warehouse employees. In 1954 the Employer made total purchases of $580,000 and sales of $963,000. The District of Columbia warehouse and stores received direct shipments of mer- chandise from outside the District in the amount of $572,000 and sales from these establishments to customers in the State of Maryland amounted to $38,000. The Alexandria store received merchandise valued at $42,000 from the District warehouse and merchandise valued at'$10,000 directly from manufacturers. The Alexandria store's sales to customers in Virginia totaled $86,000. The Employer also acts as factory representative for manufacturers in securing orders from the Federal Government, which orders are shipped directly from the manufacturers to the Government. The value of such orders amounted to approximately $16,000 in 1954. We 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 herein. Although the commerce data elicited at the hearing shows that the Employer does not meet the ordinary jurisdictional minimum for interstate retail chains, the warehouse here involved is located in the District of Columbia where the Board asserts jurisdiction on a plenary basis. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees 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. In accordance with a stipulation of the parties entered into at the hearing, we find that the following employees of the Employer at its Washington, District of Columbia, warehouse, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act : All warehousemen, including order pickers, wrappers, furniture finishers, truckdrivers, and helpers, but excluding all salesmen, office clericals, guards, and all supervisors 1 as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] ' The Employer takes the position that Grover L. Owens, Jr, is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act The-Petitioner took no, position with respect to Owens'. status. It is clear that part of Owens' , duties are nonsupervisory in nature. However, Owens is "in charge of the warehouse " during the absence of the warehouse manager and the record does not disclose whether or not during these periods Owens exercises-super- visory authority and, if he does , the amount of time he is called upon to exercise such authority. Accordingly , we make no determination as to Owens ' status, but we shall permit him to vote in the election subject to challenge , his ballot not to be counted unless it is determinative of the election result, and then only after a decision as to his status.