Capitol Trailer Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 25, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 1066 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees and, in some cases, the same immediate supervision. For the
most part, they work in offices attached to either warehouses or gaso-
line plants.
On the basis of these facts and on the record as a whole, we find that
the clerks, warehousemen, and storekeepers do not come within the
classification of office-clerical employees whom the Board excluded
from the unit found appropriate in the original decision in this case .6
Accordingly, we find that the clerks, warehousemen, and storekeepers,
are, and have been, included in that appropriate units
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the "Motion for Clarification" of the De-
cision, Direction of Election, and Order issued in this proceeding on
September 5, 1949, be, and it hereby is, granted, and accordingly it is
declared that clerks, warehousemen, and storekeepers were included
within the unit found appropriate in that Decision, Direction of Elec-
tion, and Order.
5It appears from the record that the Employer also has a classification called junior
typist, though at present the position is unoccupied The two most recent occupants have
been transferred to other jobs among the disputed field clericals. The job of the junior
typist consists of filing and typing and also assisting the other field clerical employees. We
find that the junior typist also is not an office -clerical position and is therefore included
within the unit heretofore found appropriate.
' Standard Oil Company , ( Indiana ), 80 NLRB 1275 ; Union Oil Company of California,
62 NLRB 1144.
CAPITOL TRAILER COMPANY, INC.' and UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT
AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO5 PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 32-BC-362. October 25, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Is
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before John E. Cienki,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The hearing officer erred in denying the Employer ' s motion to dismiss the petition on
the ground that the Petitioner failed to submit proof of its interest and of compliance with
Section 9 ( f), (g), and (h) of the Act. Under Section 102 57 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations a motion to dismiss the petition should be referred to the Board However, the
hearing officer ' s ruling in this case was not prejudicial because the motion to dismiss is
without merit. Modern Welding Company, 93 NLRB No 220 As to the allegation that the
Petitioner failed to submit proof of its interest , the Board has repeatedly held that the
showing of interest is not litigable at the hearing , but that it is a matter for the Board
to determine in its administrative capacity We are, furthermore , administratively satisfied
that the Petitioner has made a sufficient showing of interest . Modern Welding Company,
supra.
With regard to the assertion that the Petitioner failed to submit proof of its compliance,
the fact of compliance by a Jabor organization that is required to comply is also a matter
for administrative determination and is not litigable by the parties. Moreover , the Board
96 NLRB No. 161.
CAPITOL TRAILER COMPANY, INC. 1067
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated it powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, an Arkansas corporation, is engaged in repairing
trailer and stake bodies for trucks. During the 6-month period ending
August 31, 1951, the Employer made purchases of materials valued at
$73,531, of which $36,381 were received by it from points out of State.
During the same period, it made sales of finished goods and services
valued in excess of $122,000. Within the past year, the Employer
received $45,000 for trucks sold 3 to Safeway Stores Co., Inc., over
which the Board has heretofore exercised jurisdiction .4 On April 11,
1951, the Employer obtained a contract from the Red River Arsenal,
an agency of the Defense Department of the United States, to perform
services in the amount of $57,000. About a month later, it obtained a
similar contract from the same agency in the amount of $22,000. At
the time of the hearing, on September 7, 1951, about one-half of the
work under these contracts had been completed .5 -
We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction."
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent 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 to represent a unit composed of all the Em-
ployer's production and maintenance employees, with certain specified
exclusions. The Employer contends that all its employees except
seven or eight are temporary employees and should therefore be ex-
cluded from the unit.
is administratively satisfied that the Petitioner is in compliance Sunbeam Corporation,
94 NLRB 844; Swift i Co., 94 NLRB 917. Cf. N. L. If. B. v. Highland Park Manufacturing
Co., 71 S. Ct. 489 The hearing officer's denial of the Employer ' s motion to dismiss the
petition is hereby affirmed.
The record does not indicate whether it obtained these trucks directly from the manu-
facturer or from other distributors.
The record does not show over which of its other customers the Board has asserted
jurisdiction.
5 we find no merit in the Employer 's contention that the Defense Department contracts
were temporary projects , and that because it "has no other government contracts, and
none are contemplated," the Board should not assert jurisdiction . The record is clear
that the work undertaken by the Employer for the Defense Department agency is the
same work that it is engaged in doing for other customers . No reason appears in the
record why the Defense Department agency may not offer the Employer other contracts
for similar work after its present work is completed Nor is there anything in the record
to indicate that the Employer would refuse any other Government contract if offered.
We believe that in any event, as the Employer is presently engaged in a substantial Defense
Department contract , it would affect the present defense effort if a labor dispute developed
at this time in the Employer 's plant.
6 Westport Moving and Storage Co., Crate Making Division , 91 NLRB 727.
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer bases its contention that a majority of its employees 7
should be excluded from the unit as temporary on- the ground that
they were hired for the special job on the 2 Government contracts
which it had obtained in April 1951, and on the assertion that when
these contracts are completed it will revert to its original labor com-
plement of between 7 and 11 employees. The Employer is not certain
that it may not receive further contracts from the Defense Depart-
ment, but is unwilling to concede that it might continue to get similar
work from Government agencies and others. The Employer neverthe-
less did not inform any of its employees at the time they were hired
that there was to be any limitation on the duration of their employ-
ment 8 Under all the circumstances, we find that all the production
and maintenance employees of the Employer should be included in
the unit herein found appropriate 9 and are eligible to vote in the
election.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Eih-
ployer's Little Rock, Arkansas, plant, excluding office and clerical
employees, guards, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7 At the time of the hearing , the Employer had about 25 employees.
8 The Employer 's counsel stated , however, that after the filing of the petition in this
case , the employees were informed that their employment was temporary.
9 Cf. Lone Star Boat Mfg. Co ., 94 NLRB 19, and cases cited therein.
A. B. HIRSCHFELD PRESS, INC. and AMALGAMATED LITOGRAI' IERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 15, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 30-RC-470.
October 26, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clyde F. Waers, 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, 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.
96 NLRB No. 170.