The May Department Stores Company, D/b/a Famous-barr Company And Elevator Operators And Starters, Local 50-e, A. F. L., 230 (1944)

Docket Number:14-R-779 and 14-R--794
Party Name:243
 
FREE EXCERPT

In the Matter of THE MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY, D/B/A FAMOUS-BARR COMPANY and ELEVATOR OPERATORS AND STARTERS,

LOCAL 50-E, A. F. L.

In the Matter of THE MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY, D/B/A FAMOUS-BARR COMPANY and LOCAL 372, UNITED RETAIL, WHOLESALE,

AND DEPARTMENT STORE EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, CIO.

Cases Nos. 14-R-779 and 14-R--794, respectively.-Decided January 1, 194 Mr. Charles K. Hackler, for the Board.

Lewis, Rice, Tucker, Allen and Chubb, by Messrs. Milton H. Tucker and Robert T. Burch, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Company.

Mr. Daniel J. Carmell, of Chicago, Ill., for Local 50-E.

Mr. Joseph A. Padway, by Mr. Robert A. Wilson, of Washington,

D. C., and Mr. J. H. Skaggs, of St. Louis, Mo., for the A. F. of L.

Messrs. Francis Heisler and Leonard Levy, of Chicago, Ill., and Messrs. Morris J. Levin, Victor B. Harris, and Emanuel Boggs, of St.

Louis, Mo., for the C. I. O.

Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon separate petitions duly filed by Elevator Operators and Starters, Local 50-E, A. F. L., herein called Local 50-E, and by Local 372, United Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Employees of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the C. I. 0., each alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of The May Department Stores Company, doing business as Famous-Barr Company, St. Louis, Missouri, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate consolidated hearing upon due notice before R. N. Denhan,

Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at St. Louis, Missouri, on November 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23, 1943. The Board, the Compiny, 230 Local 50-E, the C. I. 0., and the American Federation of Labor, representing its several affiliated international unions, herein called the A. F. of L., appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During the course of the hearing, the A. F. of L. and the Company moved to dismiss the petition of the C. I. O. on the ground that the unit proposed therein was not an appropriate unit and on the further ground that the C. I. O. had failed to submit evidence of sufficient representation among employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. The Trial Examiner denied the motions and the motions were renewed before the Board.

For reasons which appear in Sections III and IV, below, the motions are denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. The request for oral argument filed by the A. F. of L. is hereby denied.

Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The May Department Stores Company is a New York corporation, owning and operating department stores in several States. In St.

Louis, Missouri, the Company does business under the trade name of Famous-Barr Company and Famous and Barr Company. The Company's store at St. Louis, Missouri, is the only store of the Company involved in the instant proceedings.

At St. Louis, Missouri, the Company is engaged in purchasing, receiving, processing, repairing, selling, and distributing a general line of department store goods and merchandise. During 1942 the Company purchased and transported to its store goods and merchandise valued at approximately $27,000,000, approximately 70 percent of which represented purchases transported from points outside Missouri. During the same period the Company sold and transported from its store goods and merchandise valued in excess of $27,000,000, of which approximately 12 percent represented sales of goods transported to points outside Missouri.

  1. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Elevator Operators and Starters, Local 50-E, is a labor organization chartered by Building Service Employees International Union, and through it affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company.

    Local 372, United Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Employees of America, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.

    The American Federation of Labor is an international labor organization, admitting to membership employees of the Company.

  2. TIE QUESTIONS CONCERNING IEPRESENTATION On September 2, 1943, Local 50-E notified the Company by letter that a majority of elevator operators at the Company's store had designated Local 50-E as their bargaining representative and requested a bargaining conference. On September 13, 1943, the Company refused to recognize Local 50-E as bargaining representative of these employees.

    On September 29, 1943, the C. I. 0. asked the Company for a bargaining conference for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining contract covering employees at the Company's store. On October 2, 1943, the Company refused to hold any such conference.

    Statements of the Regional Director and other evidence introduced at the hearing indicate that Local 50-E and the C. I. 0. each represents a substantial number of employees in the unit herein found appropriate for elevator operators of the Company and that the C. I. 0. represents a substantial number of employees in the unit herein found appropriate for other store employees of the Company?.

    SIn support of its contention to represent a substantial number of elevator employees,

    Local.50-E submitted 50 cards, each of which purported to bear an original signature of an elevator employee of the Company. Fifteen of these cards were dated in 1942, 1 was undated, and the remaining were dated 1943. The C. I. 0. submitted 24 cards, of which 4 were undated and the remaining dated in 1942, each of which purported to bear the signature of an elevator employee of the Company.

    There are approximately 40 employees in the unit appropriate for the Company's elevator operators.

    In support of its contention to represent a substantial number of employees at the store, the C. I. O. submitted 1,558 cards, 118 of which bore printed names and the remaining purported to bear genuine original signatures of employees of the Company. Of these cards 180 were undated, 189 bore dates prior to July 1, 1942, 529 bore dates between July 1 and November 24, 1942, and the remaining bore dates subsequent to November 24, 1942.

    In support of its claim to be actively organizing the employees of the Company, the American Federation of Labor submitted to the Trial Examiner at the bearing approximately 95 cards, some of which were dated in 1941, a few in 1943, and the remaining in 1942. These cards bore apparently original signatures of employees of the Company.

    The Company declined, upon request, to furnish a pay roll tof the Regional Office for the timely use of the Board's agent in making a preliminary investigation of the claims of the labor organizations to represent employees of the Company in their respectively proposed bargaining units. None of the cards submitted by these labor organizations was therefore checked against any pay roll of the Company prior to the hearing. During the course of the hearing, the Company's pay roll was received in evidence and the Company then requested that the hearing be interrupted for the comparison of the signatures on the authorization cards with the names of employees on the pay roll. The A. F. of L. joined in this request. The Trial Examiner denied the requests.

    The Company and the A. F. of L. contend that the petition of the C. I. 0. should be dismissed because the record does not affirmatively indicate the exact percentage of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit who have apparently designated the C. I. 0.

    as their bargaining representative. We do not agree. The Board's purpose in making a We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.

  3. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS The Company's main store building at St. Louis is situated on a city block bound by Sixth, Seventh, Olive, and Locust Streets. The basement, the main floor, and the upper floors to and including the 10th floor are used wholly or in part for the sale of merchandise. Parts of certain floors and intervening galleries are set aside...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP