Holland Furnace Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1339 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

HOLLAND FURNACE COMPANY 1339
the hearing. In the 6-week period prior to the hearing the Employer
had employed about 50 additional employees for the rotor blade work.
It estimated at the hearing that it would hire 15 to 20 more before
completion of the new plant, but stated that it was possible that no
hirings would occur during August because of the move into the new
plant. The record contains no further information as to the number
of prospective employees.
The Employer also alleged that while it considers its helicopter
blade manufacture a permanent endeavor, it may discontinue opera-
tions at the stamping plant because they have not been profitable.
So far as the record indicates, however, plans for discontinuance are
indefinite.
On this record we are not persuaded that the proposed expansion
of the helicopter plant operation or the possible discontinuance of the
stamping plant operation constitute sufficient reason for denying the
employees an election at this time.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
HOLLAND FURNACE COMPANY and LOCAL 585, INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 4-RC-1134.
August 24, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold X. Summers, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Em-
ployer moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the branches
of its operations involved in this proceeding are not engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, and that the unit sought is
inappropriate. The Intervenor, Sheet Metal Workers' International
Association, Local 19, A. F. L., also moved to dismiss the petition on
the ground that an existing contract is a bar. Finally, the Petitioner
moved to dismiss the Intervenor's intervention because of an alleged
insufficient showing of interest. For reasons given hereinaft ^,r, all
these motions are hereby denied.
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 Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
95 NLRB No. 180.
• 1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The Employer, a manufacturer of heating equipment, has its
main office and plant in Holland, Michigan, and sales and service
branches in practically every State of the United States. It does a
Nation-wide business. The present proceeding involves two sales and
service branches in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which are engaged
in the sale, home installation, and servicing of heating equipment.
During the past year, the Philadelphia branches- made purchases
exceeding $50,000, and sales exceeding $100,000. Almost all the pur-
chases were shipped to the Philadelphia branches from points outside.
the Commonwealth; all the sales made and services rendered were to
customers located inside the Commonwealth.
As the Philadelphia branches are operated as an integral part of a
Nation-wide business, we find,'contrary to the contention of the Em-
ployer, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
at the two Philadelphia branches, and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.'
2. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a collective bar-
gaining contract signed in 1926 "to remain in effect indefinitely" is a
bar to this proceeding. As this contract of indefinite duration has been
in effect for more than 2 years, we find that it is not a bar.2
A.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.
3. The Petitioner seeks to represent separate units of installers and
cleaners at each of the Employer's two Philadelphia branches, exclud-
ing, among others, the installation foremen. The Employer and the
Intervenor contend that an appropriate unit should be employer-wide,
or, at the least, division-wide, and that the installation foremen should
be included in any unit or units.
The Employer's approximately 500 branches located throughout
the United States are organized in 12 administrative divisions. The
2 Philadelphia branches are part of the Blue Ridge Division which
includes 35 branches located in -New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, and New. Jersey. The division is in charge of a division
manager.
Each branch manager operates under an annual franchise territorial
agreement and a detailed book of rules furnished by the Employer.
By his employment contract, the branch manager agrees that he will
not employ any help unless authorized by the Employer, but he
undertakes to hire and train the required number of sales engineers
' The Borden Company, Southern Division, 91 NLRB 628.
2 Filtrol Corporation, 74 NLRB 1307.
In view of this contract , we find that the Intervenor has a colorable claim to repre-
sentation sufficient to justify its intervention and a place on the ballot . American
Manufacturing Company, 73 NLRB 920. •
HOLLAND FURNACE COMPANY 1341
and service salesmen deemed necessary by the Employer to service
his territory. According to the book of rules,. branch employees
must work under conditions imposed by the Employer; the prevail-
ing scale of wages and other working conditions established by the
local of Sheet Metal Workers' International must be adhered to; on
transfers within a division or from one division to another, the
consent of the division manager must be obtained; and division and
branch managers must not make any attempt to hire employees of
other divisions or branches without the consent or approval of the
other divisions and branches involved.
In 1926, the, Employer signed a national agreement with the Sheet
Metal Workers' International for an indefinite period. This agree-
ment provided, inter alia, that branch dealers were to conform to the
wages, hours and working conditions established by the International's
locals. It also provided that each branch dealer was to be treated as
an individual concern.
For. at least 10 years the branch offices of the Blue Ridge Division
have not bargained collectively with any local of the Sheet Metal
Workers' International for any employees working in those branches a
A responsible witness for the Employer was unable to say whether the
wages paid conformed to the standards prescribed by the Sheet Metal
Workers' International or any of its locals.
Each branch manager does his own hiring and firing of employees
subject to the prescriptions of the book of rules. Employees may be
transferred from one branch to another, but the approval of the two
branch managers involved and of the division manager must be ob-
tained. One of the Philadelphia branch managers characterized
interbranch transfers as being the same thing as the transfer of
employees between different employers.
It is plain that, despite the intention of the 1926 agreement, there
has been no Nation-wide bargaining between the Employer and any
union for branch employees. Neither is there any evidence of bar-
gaining history on a division-wide basis. In the absence of such
bargaining history, we do not believe that either a Nation-wide or a
division-wide unit is the only appropriate one. On the contrary, the
wide geographical dispersion of the branches and the considerable
autonomy vested in each branch under the franchise system indicate
that the employees in each branch may constitute a separate ap-
propriate unit.4 We so finds •
8 The parties stipulated that the Sheet Metal Workers' International, or various locals
of that organization . but not the local involved in this proceeding . Is the bargaining repre-
sentative for employees similar to those Involved in this proceeding employed in branch
offices in St . Louis, Chicago, and Seattle , and that the same international through various
locals may or may not represent employees in other branches of the Employer.
4 The two , Philadelphia branches are as independent of one another as any two branches
more widely separated.
5 Burroughs Adding Machine Co., 93 NLRB 98; Schick Service, Inc., 88 NLRB 1378.
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner would exclude, and the Employer and Intervenor
include, the installation foremen. This individual oversees the work
of all branch employees engaged in installation and cleaning work..
He has the power effectively to recommend a change in the status of
his subordinates. We find that he is a supervisor within the mean-
ing of the Act. We shall therefore exclude him from each unit.
We find that the following units at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
branches of the Employer, excluding from each unit the branch man-
ager, office assistants, salesmen, installation foreman and other super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute units appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section.
9 (b) of the Act.
1. All installers and cleaners at Philadelphia Branch #1.
2. All installers and cleaning truck operators at Philadelphia
Branch #2, excluding the part-time janitor.6
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
e All parties agreed to the exclusion of this part-time janitor.
ARKPORT DAIRIES, INC. and CHAUFFEURS & TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION
65, ITHACA, N. Y. & VICINITY, PETITIONER
ARJPORT'DAIRIES, INC. and CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN
& HELPERS' LOCAL. UNION #65, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS', WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMER-
ICA, AFL. Cases Nos. 3-RC-298 and 3-CA-24.0. August 07, 1951
Decision and Order
On April 26, 1951, Trial Examiner Earl S. Bellman issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action; and finding further that the Respond-
ent had interfered with an election conducted by the Board among the
Respondent's employees and recommending that the election be set
aside, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint, and recommended dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter,
the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter-
mlediate Report, and supporting briefs. '
95 NLRB No. 176.