F. W. Woolworth Co., 671 (1962)

F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY 671 warehouses , who are responsible to the common owner, work out between them labor policies , wages, benefits , and personnel policies applicable to both warehouses . Merchandise for the warehouses is purchased in carload lots. Deliveries to the Employer ' s customers may be made from the warehouse most conveniently situated . Employees are commonly exchanged between the warehouses , as necessary . The twowarehouses are presently absorbing between them employees and customers from a former branch operated by the Employer at Covington , Louisiana.

In view of the uniform and integrated operation of the two warehouses under common management , we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner , restricted to employees at the Bogalusa warehouse , is not appropriate .' Because the Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing of interest in the larger unit to justify an election, we will dismiss the petition.10 [The Board dismissed the petition filed in Case No. 15-RC1004 by Teamsters Local Union No. 5, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL.] [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] 9Ross Lumber Company, 94 NLRB 636; Liebmann Breweries, Inc., 92 NLRB 1740

10 For this reason we find it unnecessary to consider in this decision the placement of salesmen in the unit proposed by the Petitioner.

F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY, Compton, California and VARIOUS EMPLOYEES OF F. W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY, 166 E. Compton Blvd., Compton , California, Petitioners and RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL NO. 324,

AFL. Case No. 21-UD-13. December 31, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION

Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (e) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing in this case was held before Irving Helbling, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and 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 National Labor Relations Act.

2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer.

3. On May 1, 1952, the Employer and the Union entered into a 2-year collective-bargaining contract expiring April 23, 1954, which contains a union-security provision in the nature 107 NLRB No 145.

of maintenance of membership . The petition in this case was filed August 10, 1953, and seeks an election to rescind the Union ' s authority to make a union - security agreement. The Union contends that the petition was not properly supported by the requisite 30 percent of employees , a contention with which we do not agree for reasons set out in paragraph numbered 4 hereof.

We find that the petition in this case has been properly filed and complies in all respects with the provision of Section 9 (e) of the amended Act.' 4. The contract in question covers a storewide unit of employees and provides a limited form of union security, that is, employees not union members at the time of its execution are not required to become members. Specifically the contract provision is:

Section 2 . Union Membership . (a) All present employees covered by this agreement who are members of the Union or who become members of the Union shall remain members as a condition of continued employment.

(b) The Employer may select and employ without restrictions ; however, all new employees who are covered by this agreement shall become members of the Union within thirty- one (31 ) days from hiring in date and shall maintain membership in the...