Joske's Houston

JOSKE'S HOUSTON Joske's Houston and General Drivers, Warehouse- men & Helpers Local Union No. 968, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America Petitioner. Case 23-RC-4528 October 18, 1977 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer John P. Cearley on June 1, 2, and 6, 1977, at Houston, Texas. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, this case was transferred to the Board by direction of the Regional Director for Region 23. Briefs have been filed by the Employer and the Petitioner. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Employer is a Texas corporation engaged in the retail sale of goods at various stores. The facility involved herein is its service center, located at 6666 Mykawa Road in Houston, Texas, through which goods are purchased and distributed to its retail outlets. Its two primary functions are the movement of merchandise and inventory and control of that merchandise. In a previous proceeding,2 the Union, on February 13, 1976, petitioned for a warehouse unit, which I The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 Case 23-RC-4353. not published in bound volumes. 3 The following classifications were included in the unit: traffic office, receiving dock, marking room (POFO), upholstery workroom, carpet workroom, drapery workroom. appliance workroom, frame shop, delivery 233 NLRB No. 4 included all employee classifications supervised by the Employer's general operations manager. The Employer, contending that all classifications were functionally integrated in its operations, argued that the only appropriate unit would include all service center employees, all of whom receive the same benefits. The Regional Director found the requested unit appropriate because of its separate supervision and because of the lack of functional integration among warehouse and other employees.3 Request for review of that Decision and Direction of Election was denied by the Board on May 14, 1976. The Union, however, failed to obtain a majority in that election. The parties' positions are unchanged. The Petition- er requests a warehouse unit of all 140 employees supervised by the general operations manager and the Employer maintains that the only appropriate unit would include all service center employees.4 The parties agreed that the Board should take notice of the record in the previous case. The thrust of the evidence presented in the later hearing related to the duties and responsibilities of the disputed buyer clericals, and to the Employer's allegations that there have been "relevant changes" in its operation warranting a finding that only a unit of all of the approximately 400 service center employees is now appropriate. The Employer points to the following changes in its operation since the previous proceeding: (1) A second door added to the traffic office, (2) relocation of the offices of the receiving clericals and buyer clericals, (3) installation of a new photocopy ma- chine, (4) distribution of a service center newspaper "to relay news of interest to all employees," (5) elimination of appliance repair, (6) increased parking facilities, and (7) addition of a bulletin board outside the personnel office. It also asserts that increased contact among employees has resulted from in- creased business volume. We find these changes de minimis. In large part they are physical changes affecting only the location at which employees report for or perform certain work. The same functions are still performed with the same supervision. Further, the Employer's increased volume since the previous proceeding has required neither substantial organizational changes nor an influx of additional employees. In any event, the changes instituted by the Employer do not destroy the identity of the unit found appropriate in the previous proceeding, which we find appropriate. warehousemen, housekeeping. furniture workroom. lawnmower. hike shop, and supply room. 4 Sears, Roebuck and Co., 222 NLRB 476 (1976), which the Employer claims is controlling, is inapposite. The merchandise control, delivery office, and receiving clericals, whom the Board included in the warehouse unit, were not separately supervised as in the instant case. Rather, they had common supervision with the warehouse unit employees. 31 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Still at issue is the status of the buyer clericals. The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, would exclude them from the bargaining unit. However, Petitioner stated it would not object to the inclusion of this classification if it is deemed appropriate. There are two furniture-buyer clericals and two drapery-buyer clericals. They "walk through" paperwork to expe- dite everything that happens to the merchandise from purchase until delivery to the customer. They also handle the initial investigation of customer complaints. The four buyer clericals are immediately supervised by the buyers, who have authority to fire them. The merchandise manager oversees the buyers and reports to a general merchandise manager at one of the Employer's other facilities. Because the buyer clericals are separately supervised and are more involved with control and inventory of the merchan- dise, than with its movement, which involves the warehouse employees, we find that they lack a sufficient community of interest for inclusion in the unit. Indeed, even the Employer in its brief demar- cates two "primary functions" at its service center: (1) movement of merchandise and (2) inventory and control. Therefore, they are excluded from the unit found appropriate.5 5 Member Murphy does not agree that the buyer-clericals are clearly to be excluded from the unit and she would direct that they be voted subject to challenge. Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record in this case, including all transcripts, exhibits, and briefs in the previous proceeding between the parties regarding the appropriateness of a warehouse unit, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees employed by the Employer at its Service Center facility at 6666 Mykawa Road, Houston, Texas, who are supervised by its general operations manager, including traffic officer, receiving dock, marking room (POFO), uphol- stery workroom, carpet workroom, drapery work- room, frame shop, delivery warehousemen, housekeeping, furniture workroom, lawnmower, bike shop, and supply room, but excluding truckdrivers and truckdrivers' helpers,6 SIM/MR, unit control, credit, IO/AP, electronic data processing, payroll, general ledger, statistical, COD, sales audits, expense control, confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] s A unit of drivers and drivers' helpers is currently represented by the Petitioner pursuant to certification in Case 23-RC- 1867. 32