Richmond Dry Goods Co., Inc., 663 (1951)

RICHMOND DRY GOODS COMPANY, INC . 663

Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain, in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in such conduct. The undersigned will further recommend that the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the unit hereinabove found appropriate.

Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following :

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

  1. International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 727, is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.

  2. All the Respondent's mechanics, lube men, parts men, body and fender men, painters, service mechanics, maintenance men, and working foremen, excluding guards, professional employees, clerical employees, salesmen, and supervisors as defined by the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.

  3. International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 727 was on April 11, 1950, and at all times relevant thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.

  4. By refusing on April 14, 1950, and thereafter to bargain collectively with International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 727, as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.

  5. By the said refusal the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.

  6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.

    [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] RICHMOND DRY GOODS COMPANY, INC. and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 157, AFL, PETITIONER RICHMOND DRY GOODS COMPANY, INC. and WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL. No. 322, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,

    CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,

    PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 5-RC-730 and 5-RC-789. March 5, 1951

    Decision and Order Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before Dudley S. Knox, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made 93 NLRB No. 87.

    at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].

    Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :

  7. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act? 2. The Petitioner in Case No. 5-RC-730, herein called the Clerks, and the Petitioner in Case No. 5-RC-789, herein called the Warehousemen, are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer.

  8. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:

    The Clerks requests generally a unit of employees engaged in selling and related activities. The Warehousemen requests a unit of employees engaged in warehousing and related activities. The proposed units correspond approximately to the two divisions, merchandising and operations, through which the Employer conducts its business.

    The Employer's position is that only a single unit of all nonsupervisory employees, including office clericals, would be appropriate.

    All parties agree that the outside salesmen, all of whom spend most of their time on the road, should be excluded.

    The Employer operates a whoesale dry goods establishment in Richmond, Virginia, selling to retail stores and institutions in the southeastern States. Its sole place of business is in Richmond, where it occupies two buildings across the street from each other. One building is used exclusively for receiving, storing, and shipping goods, while the other has both sales departments and storage space. About 180 employees are employed. All the employees requested by the Clerks work in the main building which contains the sales departments, and those sought by the Warehousemen work out of both buildings. Working conditions, privileges, and wage rates3 are com' Both Petitioners moved at the hearing to sever the consolidated cases on the ground that each was seeking a unit of employees within...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT