Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

656, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B ) of the Act. 6. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Association , as found above, the .Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and 2 (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] ,Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated i and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local #377, Petitioner 'Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated and Retail Clerks Inter- national Association, Local 298, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 8-RC-4081 and 8-RC-4087. July 31, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Nora Friel, hearing officer.2 The -hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees 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 in Case No. 8-RC-4081, hereinafter called Team- sters, seeks to represent service employees, drivers and helpers, and warehousemen, including shipping and receiving employees, at the Employer's Youngstown retail store, located in two establishments in Youngstown, Ohio, viz, Liberty Plaza, located at Belmont Avenue, and Boardman Plaza, located at Boardman-Canfield Road, but excluding 1 The Employer's name appears as corrected at the hearing. The Employer filed a motion to set aside the order consolidating cases, the notice of hearing, and that part of the record pertaining to Case No . 8-RC-4087 on the ground that ,no investigation was made by the Regional Director to determine whether a question con- cerning representation exists. The motion is defiled inasmuch as we are satisfied that such an investigation was made. Moreover , preliminary investigation of showing of inter- est is a matter for administrative determination only,and is not litigible by the parties. Accord : Louisiana Gas Service Co., 126 NLRB 147. We are also satisfied as-to the adequacy of the showing. 132 NLRB No. 45. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INCORPORATED 657 all office clerical employees, clerks, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Petitioner in Case No. 8-RC-4087, hereinafter called Retail Clerks, seeks to represent all employees not sought by the Teamsters, i.e., sales, clerical, maintenance, custodial, and office clerical employees of the Employer at its above-named establishments in Youngstown, Ohio, but excluding drivers and helpers, service repair employees, auto service repair employees, shipping and receiving employees, and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Both Teamsters and Retail Clerks are willing to appear as joint petitioners in the event a storewide unit is found to be appropriate. The Employer contends that neither unit is appropriate, as the only appropriate unit is a storewide unit comprising both locations. The two stores are engaged in the sale of soft goods, home furnish- ings, hardware, sporting goods, housewares, tires, and auto accessories under common management. There is no history of collective bar- gaining at the stores in question. Although the Teamsters unit includes warehousemen who may under certain conditions constitute an appropriate unit, such a unit is not appropriate where, as here, the warehousing operation is a part of and under the same supervision as the retail store operations.' As the evi- dence does not show that the service employees sought by the Team- sters are craftsmen, no basis exists for establishing a separate unit for them. Finally, although the truckdrivers might constitute an appro- priate unit, the Teamsters does not seek to represent them alone. Accordingly, we find that the unit sought by the Teamsters is inappropriate. As the unit sought by the Retail Clerks excludes employees possess- ing similar interests, working conditions, and the same supervision as the employee sought, we find it to be inappropriate. The more compre- hensive unit, consisting of the two establishments which make up the Employer's Youngstown, Ohio, retail store, does, in conformity with Board precedent, constitute an appropriate unit. Accordingly we find the more comprehensive unit appropriate 4 The, parties agree that the store manager and the assistant store manager are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The Em- ployer contends, however, that its group supervisors, catalog man= agers, credit manager, and repair service manager are also supervisors while the Teamsters and Retail Clerks contend they are not. As the record indicates that each of the individuals in question, who is sal- aried and does not punch the timeclock, has the authority to hire, dis- charge, and effectively recommend the same, we find them to be super- 8 A. Harris & Co., 116 NLRB 1628. 4Polk Brothers, Inc., 128 NLRB 330.; T. P., Taylor & Company, Inc., et at., 115 NLRB 376. 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD visors within the meaning of the Act and accordingly exclude them from the unit. In view of the foregoing, we find that all employees of Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated, employed in its retail store located in two establishments, at Liberty Plaza, Belmont Avenue, and at Boardman Plaza, Boardman-Canfield Road, Youngstown, Ohio, but excluding the store manager, the assistant store manager, group supervisors, the credit department manager, the catalog managers, the repair service manager, and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Detroit Association of Plumbing Contractors and James P. Duffy Mechanical Contractors Association of Detroit and James P. Duffy Farrington Company and James P. Duffy Goss Mechanical Contractors Company and James P. Duffy J. W. Partlan Company and James P. Duffy Stanley Carter Company and James P. Duffy Donald Miller Company and James P. Duffy Johnson Service Company and James P. Duffy United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. and James P. Duffy. Cases Nos. 7-CA-1709,7-CA-1710,7-CA-1784,7-CA-1785,7-CA- 17867 7-CA-1787, 7-CA-1788, 7-CA-1799, and 7-CA-1793. July 31,1961 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On March 31, 1960, the Board issued its original decision 1_ in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that two Employer Associations and a number of individual employers had interfered with the internal affairs of United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, by permitting supervisors to hold union office, vote in union elections, and engage in negotiations with the Respondent Em- ployer Associations on behalf of the Union, in violation of Section 8(a) (2) and ( 1) of the Act. 1 Detroit Association of Plumbing Contractors, 126 NLRB 1381. 132 NLRB No. 40.