Eclectic Furniture Center

616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Casual Furniture Mart, Inc., d/b/a Eclectic Furniture Center and Local Union No. 814, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 2-RC-16424 June 17, 1974 DECISION ON REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO On March 13, 1974, the Regional Director for Region 2 issued his Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found appropriate a requested unit of warehouse employees at the Employer's New York City retail furniture operations. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's Decision on the grounds that in resolving the unit issues herein, he made findings of fact which are clearly erroneous and departed from officially reported precedent. By telegraphic order dated April 15, 1974, the Employer's request for review was granted and the election stayed pending decision on review. Thereaft- er, the Petitioner filed with the Board as its brief on review the brief it had filed with the Regional Director. 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 considered the entire record in this case " with respect to the issues under review, including the Petitioner's brief on review, and makes the following findings: The Employer contends that the requested unit found appropriate by the Regional Director fails to meet the standards for a separate warehouse unit enunciated by the Board in A. Harris & Co., 116 NLRB 1628, and that the only appropriate unit includes all employees at its retail operations. We agree. The Employer is a small family corporation which is engaged in the retail furniture business and maintains its showroom and office at 1 Park Avenue, i The lease on the showroom at I Park Avenue expires in October 1974, and the Employer testified that it is to the process of arranging to lease new space in order to be able to combine the showroom and the warehouse under one roof. 2 The warehouse is under the direction of a working foreman who was included in Petitioner's unit in view of the parties' stipulation that he was not a supervisor. There was also record evidence which indicates that the working foreman lacks supervisory authority as it is defined in the Act. 3 See also Wickes Furniture, A Division of the Wickes Corporation, 201 New York City, and a warehouse around the corner at 142 East 32d Street,! New; York City.' It employs 10 full-time employees and 1 part-time employee, excluding its president, Joseph Arkus, and his wife, both corporate officers who are on the premises during the working day. Four employees are classi- fied as office employees, three as sales employees, three as warehousemen, and one as a part-time warehouseman; the latter also serves as porter at the office and showroom. All employees are under the immediate supervision of Mr. Arkus.2 He testified that the job functions of employees at the showroom, office, and warehouse are coordinated and overlap considerably as flexibility and interchange among employees are essential for the viability and existence of the small business operation involved. Thus, merchandise delivered to the salesroom is unpacked by either salesmen or warehousemen; office employ- ees assist in the warehouse; and the warehousemen perform many functions , in the showroom. All employees receive substantially the same compensa- tion, and have identical benefits. The same personnel policies apply to all employees. There is no bargain- ing history for the employees. In view of the absence of separate supervision for warehouse employees, the degree of functional integration which exists, and the fact that the two locations are separated geographically by less than a block, we find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the proposed unit does not meet the A. Harris & Co. standards for a separate warehouse unit.3 Accordingly, we find that the only appropriate unit herein includes all employees in the furniture operations. In view of the foregoing, and as the Petitioner indicated a willingness to proceed to an election in the overall unit, we conclude that the following unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time employees of Employer employed in its retail furniture opera- tion in New York, New York, excluding manage- rial employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of NLRB 615; Wickes Furniture, A Division of the Wickes Corporation, 201 NLRB 610; Levitz Furniture Company of Santa Clara Inc., 192 NLRB 61. Dolnick's Furniture Co., Inc., 198 NLRB No. 105, cited by the Regional Director, is factually distinguishable in that there a majority found that the warehouse employees were separately supervised, and that they had minimal contact with the other employees of the employer . Chairman Miller, in any event, who dissented therein , finds no need to distinguish between that and this case since he would not have found the separate unit of warehouse employees sought in Dolnick's to be appropriate. 211 NLRB No. 69 ECLECTIC FURNITURE CENTER 617 Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll period for _determining eligibility shall be that 4 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U.S. 759. Accordingly,. it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed immediately preceding the issuance date of this Decision on Review.4 by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 2 within 7 days of the date of this Decision on Review . The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. 3