Canton, Carp's, Inc.

CANTON, CARP'S, INC. 483 Canton, Carp's, Inc.' and Retail Clerks International Associa- tion, Local No. 536, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC- 6732. November 30, 1959 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 John C. Sheerin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. At the hearing and in its brief, the Employer urged that the petition be dismissed on the ground that its gross volume of business does not meet the Board's jurisdictional standards. The Employer, an Illinois corporation, owns and operates a single retail store located in Canton, Illinois. Its gross sales during the fiscal year ending January 31, 1959, were slightly in excess of $300,000. Thus, the Employer, on the basis of its own sales fails to meet our current juris- dictional standard for retail establishments 2 However, the Petitioner contends that the Employer and other corporations are affiliated enterprises constituting a single employer for jurisdictional purposes. Bernard Carp, president of Employer, together with other members of his family, who are also corporate offi- cers of the Employer, own 90 percent of its stock. Carp is also the president of 24 other corporations which are engaged in similar retail businesses in various Illinois and Missouri towns. He and members of his family own varying amounts of stock in each of the 25 Carp stores. All of these corporations use the name "Carp" as part of the corporate name. He is also president of Carp's, Inc., in St. Louis, Missouri, which acts as the wholesaling and warehousing part of the Carp merchandising operations. At least 80 percent of the business of Carp's, Inc., consists of sales to the Employer and the other 24 corporations bearing the Carp name. The Employer purchases approximately 80 percent of its merchandise from Carp's, Inc. All managers and assistant managers of the various separately incorporated stores are hired and fired and assigned and reassigned a by Carp personally. The manager of the Employer, Gunn, owns the remaining 10 percent of the stock in the store, although there is some indication in the record that his stock ownership depends on his tenure 1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing. z Carolina Supplie8 and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88. ' The present manager of the Employer, for instance, has been assistant manager of Mount Vernon Carp' s, and manager of Sullivan Carp's and California Carp 's since 1953. 125 NLRB No. 55. 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as manager. Like the other 24 store managers, Gunn individually determines his employees' rates of pay, hours of work, vacations, holi- days, and working conditions generally. He also has exclusive control over hiring and discharging the store employees, and over purchasing. Mr. Carp makes his headquarters at the offices of Carp's, Inc., in, St. Louis. From this office, advertising material is disseminated to the store managers which may or may not be utilized, depending upon the manager's individual determination. In addition to this service, Carp's, Inc., keeps and audits the books of the 25 stores and also pre- pares and transmits the managers' individual paychecks. Occasion- ally, Mr. Carp will call a meeting of the store managers for the purpose of selecting merchandise from Carp's, Inc., for their respec- tive stores. Whenever a new Carp store is established, it attempts to negotiate its own lease in the name of the new corporation. However, if the lessor desires (in the words of Carp) "somebody responsible," then the lessor may elect to have "the parent, . . . Carp's, Inc.," sign the lease, which is then assigned to the new corporation. The Employer asserts that the Board should not find that the vari- ous Carp enterprises constitute a single employer as the record is de- void of any evidence that would establish a common labor relations policy among the stores.' Contrary to the belief of the Employer, the presence or absence of a common labor relations policy is not con- clusive in determining whether separate legal entities constitute a "single employer" for jurisdictional purposes. The fact that the record does not show that Carp or any official of Carp's, Inc., per- sonally intervenes in labor relations matters of the 25 corporations is relevant, but not decisive. The Board has on several occasions made a finding of a single employer status in the absence of evidence of a common labor relations policy,' and has found two corporations to be single employer even though it was affirmatively shown that each corporation established its own labor relations policy.' Thus, to ac- cord less weight, as the Employer would have us do, to other evidence establishing close control through common ownership and manage- ment is not only contrary to Board policy, but would also ignore the realities of commercial organization. The control which Carp can assert over individual store managers by his right of appointment and transfer, the right of Carp's, Inc., to audit the stores' books, the fact that most purchases are made through 4 In support of its argument the Employer has cited Park Plaza Amusement Company, 124 NLRB 428; Clark Concrete Construction Corporation, 116 NLRB 321 ; Electronic Circuits, Inc., 115 NLRB 940; and Central Dairy Products Co., Stefen's Branch, 114 NLRB 1189, in which -tlie Board relied, in part, on the absence of a common labor rela- tions policy in finding that separate businesses did not constitute a single employer. 5 Duval Jewelry Company, 122 NLRB 1425 ; Levitz Service Company, 121 NLRB 205. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. (of Kentucky), 115 NLI2.B 622. Youngstown Tent and Awning Company, 110 NLRB 835. WALTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 485 an affiliated organization, and the leasing arrangements,' all establish that Carp's, Inc., and the 25 separately incorporated stores constitute a chain merchandising operation which is integrated and centrally controlled. In these circumstances, we find that the Employer and the other Carp corporations constitute a single employer for jurisdic- tional purposes. The record reveals that Carp's, Inc., ships goods outside the State, and has a gross volume of business well in excess of the Board's standards for either wholesale or retail establishments. Without regard, therefore, as to whether the combined Carp mer- chandising operations are to be regarded as a wholesale or retail en- terprise, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Employer. Accordingly, we deny its motion to dismiss. 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. The Petitioner is seeking a unit of "all full-time and all part- time employees in the Canton, Illinois store." The Employer con- tends that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that the unit description is vague and indefinite. As the Employer has failed to indicate any specific employee categories which it believes should be excluded, and as we have often held that units of full-time and part-time employees in retail stores are appropriate,8 we, accordingly, deny the Employer's motion to dismiss. We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the means of Section 9(b) of the Act: All regular full-time and part-time employees em- ployed at the Employer's Canton, Illinois, store, excluding all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 7 See Duane's Miami Corporation, 119 NLRB 1331. BF. W. Woolworth Company, 119 NLRB 480; J. J. Moreau & Son, Inc., 107 NLRB 999. Walton Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-399244. De- cember 1, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On August 18, 1959, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 125 NLRB No. 51. 535828-60-vol. 125-32