Brown Equipment & Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1278 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
only in degree, not in basic interests. Inasmuch as the unit sought
thus, at the very least, fails to include all the employees currently rep-
resented by the Intervenor who have duties and interests in common,
we find that it is not appropriate for decertification purposes.s
Accordingly, we must dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in this case be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
a See Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., 92 NLRB 702.
BROWN EQUIPMENT & MANUFACTURING Co., INC . and DISTRICT 26,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER . Case No.
1-RC-1860. April 9,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Torbert H. MacDonald, hear-
ing 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
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner desires to be certified as the bargaining repre-
sentative of all persons employed in repairing, servicing, and main-
taining equipment at the Employer's Bradley Field, Windsor Locks,
Connecticut, plant, excluding executives, office and clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Employer and Local 404, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, the
Intervenor herein, oppose the petition on the ground that the pro-
posed bargaining unit is inappropriate because it does not include the
employees at the Employer's West Springfield, Massachusetts, plant.
The Intervenor has represented employees at the Employer's West
Springfield plant continuously since 1945, and during this period, has
entered into successive annual collective, bargaining agreements with
93 NLRB No. 223.
BROWN EQUIPMENT & MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1279
the Employer for such employees. The 1949-1950 agreement and the
earlier agreements define the scope of the bargaining unit as includ-
ing the employees at the Employer's plant at West Springfield "and
adjacent area." Until late in the year 1950, the Employer operated no
other plants in the area adjacent to West Springfield. However, in
1950 the Employer leased the Bradley Field plant, which is located
approximately 14 miles from its West Springfield plant, for an initial
term of 1 year with the option of extending the term of its lease for
at least an additional year, and commenced operations therein on
October 2,1950.
The record shows that the Employer at both the West Springfield
and Bradley Field plants is engaged in reconditioning automotive
equipment. The West Springfield operation is considerably larger
than the Bradley Field operation. Approximately 165 men are em-
ployed at the West Springfield plant, whereas only 67 men are
employed at the Bradley Field plant. The Bradley Field plant is
not as fully equipped as the West Springfield plant. In consequence,
some necessary portions of the repair and overhaul work on the equip-
ment ultimately consigned to the Bradley Field plant for recondi-
tioning is performed at the West Springfield plant. Both plants are
subject to the over-all supervision of W. E. Larkin, the Employer's
plant manager. Also, procurement of much of the supplies for the
Bradley Field plant is done from the Employer's West Springfield
plant. These factors are emphasized by the Intervenor and the Em-
ployer in support of their argument that a bargaining unit limited
to the employees at the Bradley Field plant is inappropriate. On
the other hand, it appears that there is almost no interchange or
transfer of personnel between the 2 plants and that, because of the
distance separating the 2 plants, the personnel is obtained from 2
different employment areas. The personnel for the Bradley Field
plant is recruited at the plant by its plant superintendent. Further-
more, the employees at each plant are subject to separate, independent
local supervision.,
While factors present in this case such as the interrelation of oper-
ations of both plants indicate the appropriateness of a two-plant unit,
they are not so compelling as to require our holding that no other
unit is appropriate. The Board normally permits new employees at
a new plant 2 a voice in the determination of whether or not they
shall be separately represented apart from the employees at other
plants of their employer.3 We believe therefore that, upon the record
' The payrolls for the Bradley Field plant are compiled at the west Springfield plant.
Also, the Employer ' s plant manager , who supervises both plants , screens the applicants
for employment at the Bradley Field plant.
2 The Bradley Field plant was in' operation only 21 days before the petition herein
was filed.
3 Sinclair Refinery Company, 92 NLRB 643.
1280- DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in this case, including the geographical separation between the two
plants, the lack of interchange of personnel between the plants, and,
the fact that there is no history of bargaining on a multiplant basis,'
the proposed bargaining unit of employees at the Bradley Field plant
may also be appropriate,5 depending upon the results of the election
hereinafter directed. Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the
following voting group :
All persons employed in repairing, servicing, and maintaining,
equipment at the Employer's Bradley Field, Windsor Locks, Con-
necticut, plant, excluding executives, office and clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Aet.
' If a majority of the employees select the Petitioner as their repre-
sentative, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be repro-`
sented in a separate unit; if a majority select the Intervenor, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to be included with the eni-
ployees at the West Springfield plant in a two-plant unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
-volume.]
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
4 After the petition herein was filed , the Employer and Intervenor executed a collective
bargaining agreement purporting to cover the employees at both the West Springfield
and Bradley Field plants . However, a contract executed under such circumstances does
not, in our view, establish an effective history of collective bargaining .
c Sinclair Refinery Company, 92 NLRB 643. Perfection Garment Company. 91 NLRB
1421 ; Magnet Cove Barium Corporation, 90 NLRB No 54, General Electric Company,
85 NLRB 150.
UNITED STATES SMELTING, REFINING AND MINING COMPANY 1 and
GRANT COUNTY MINERS' ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL & SMELTER WORKERS, LOCAL No. 890,.
INTERVENOR. Case No. 33-RC426. April 9,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Byron S. Guse,
hearing officer .2 The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
' The Employer' s name appears as corrected at the hearing
2The hearing officer referred to the Board for iuling the Intervenor' s motion to dismiss
the petition on the grounds (1) that the unit is inappropriate , ( 2) that it has no
limitation in its constitution or bylaws as to whom it will admit to membership, and is
therefore not a bona fide labor organization within the meaning of the Act; ( 3) that
there is now pending before the Board certain unfair labor practice charges In Case
No. 33-CA-117; and (4 ) that certain of the constitutional-officers of the Petitioner are
not in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act.
As regards the first ground this motion is denied for reasons hereinafter stated in
paragraph numbered 5, infra.
93 NLRB No. 219.