C. D. Beck & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 1130 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. D. BECK & COMPANY, INC.' and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO1 PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-19208. October 09,1951
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 Bernard Ness, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Styles].
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 seeks a production and maintenance unit, includ-
ing inter alia janitors and firemen. The Intervenor 2 agrees with the
propored unit. The Employer, however, would exclude janitors and
firemen therefrom. There is no history of collective bargaining
affecting these employees.
The Employer employs one janitor, who performs the usual jani-
torial duties in both the office and the shop. He is under the supervision
of the shop superintendent, as are the other employees involved in
this proceeding. As the Employer has advanced no cogent reason
for excluding the janitor, we shall include him in the unit as a
maintenance employee.3
The Employer also employs three licensed firemen who, during the
hours when the plant is not in operation, tend the steam boilers used
'The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. The Employer con-
tends that the Board is without jurisdiction in this proceeding, because the petition, the
notice of hearing, and the amendment to the notice of hearing, designated and were served
on C D. Beck & Company, a partnership separate and distinct from the Employer, a cor-
poration. These documents were served by registered mail and telegram addressed to
Ct D. Beck & Company, Attention : C. D. Beck, President. C. D. Beck is both a partner in
the partnership and president of the corporation. The Employer participated in an in-
formal conference held by the Board's Regional Office prior to the formal hearing, and
appeared and participated fully at the formal hearing. No showing has been made that
the Employer was prejudiced in any manner by this technical defect in the formal papers.
Accordingly, we find the Employer's contention to be without merit. Rochester Metal
Products, 94 NLRB 1779.
2 United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 776.
3 R J. Gould Welding and Erecting Company, Ino., 95 NLRB 460.
96 NLRB No. 174.
C. D. BECK & COMPANY, INC. 11311
for heating the plant. They also perform janitorial duties and, for-
10 minutes out of each hour, make rounds of the plant to check for-
fire and theft. Except with respect to their boiler room duties, they
are under the supervision of the shop superintendent. As the firemen:
do not spend more than 50 percent of their time performing plant-
protection duties, we find that they are not guards within the meaning-
of the Act 4 As they are essentially maintenance employees, and the
Employer has advanced no cogent reason for excluding them, we shall
include the firemen in the unit.5
The Employer contends that if the firemen are included in the unit,
Short, also a licensed fireman, should also be included therein. The-
Intervenor opposes his inclusion but the Petitioner, although not
opposing his exclusion, believes that he should be included. Short-
tends the boilers during the hours when the plant is in operation, and
is also in charge of all machine maintenance work at the plant. No,
employees are regularly under his supervision; however, when neces-
sary, production employees are, at his request, assigned to assist him,
in his maintenance duties. The three firemen discussed above report
to Short with respect to their boiler room duties. The record does not
reflect that Short's direction of the firemen and the employees who.
assist him in his maintenance duties requires the exercise of independ-
ent judgment, and he apparently possesses none of the other statutory-
indicia of supervisory authority. We find, accordingly, that Short,
is not a supervisor, and we shall therefore include Short in the unit.
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that all'
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Sidney,.
Ohio, plant, including janitors, firemen, and employees in the shipping-
room, stockroom, machine shop, toolroom, and warehouse, but ex-
cluding all office and clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. Beginning about June 15, 1951, the Employer has laid off ap-
proximately 40 employees because of lack of work; the remaining
employees are working only about 3 days per week. No promises were
made to the laid-off employees as to whether they would be recalled.
The Employer has no system of seniority or other system for recalling
laid-off employees. The Employer's president testified that the Em-
ployer would attempt to reemploy the laid-off employees if business
The Carborundum Company, 95 NLRB 897.
The Carborundum Company, supra We find without merit the Employer's contention
that the firemen should be excluded from the unit because, in the event of a strike, they
allegedly could effectively shut down the plant. Such a consideration is insufficient to
warrant denying these employees collective bargaining rights, or to control their unit
placement . See Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation , Fort Worth Division , 92 NLRB
1290; General Electric Company, 85 NLRB 1316. Cf. Standard Oal Company ( Indiana),
80 NLRB 1275, 1277.
1132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conditions should warrant an expansion of the working force ; how-
ever, he was unable to predict when such conditions might prevail.
Under these circumstances we find, contrary to the contention of the
Petitioner and the Intervenor, that the laid-off employees have no
reasonable expectation of reemployment by the Employer, and that
they are accordingly ineligible to vote in the election herein directed 6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 Albion Malleable Iron Company, 90 NLRB 1640, 1642.
Fox DELUXE FOODS, INC. and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND
BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases
Nos. 18-RC-1214 and 18-RC-123,2. October 29, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Clarence A.
Meter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist 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 seeks to represent the following employees as
separate bargaining units : (1) All production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Barron, Wisconsin, plant, including seas-
onal employees, the truck driver, and the cattle buyer, but excluding
office and clerical employees, construction employees, intake station
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and (2) all office
and clerical employees at the Employer's plant, excluding supervisors
as defined in the Act .1
1 The Employer contended that the Petitioner cannot represent the office and clerical
employees apparently on the ground that the Petitioner has no such jurisdiction. As the
Board has frequently held under similar circumstances , the willingness of a petitioner to
represent the employees in issue is controlling under the Act, not the eligibility of em•
ployees to membership nor the exact extent of the petitioner ' s constitutional jurisdiction.
96 NLRB No. 183.