John C. Stalfort & Sons, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1965

156 N.L.R.B. 84 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mines the prices at which products will be sold to the distributor and,
by its practice of providing for distribution to the retailers the "sug-
gested" price list at which the products should be purchased from the
distributors, effectively circumscribes resale prices.
In view of the facts that the distributors have minimal control of
the manner and means by which their work is to be accomplished and
meager opportunity to make decisions which would affect their profit
and loss and upon the entire record, we fmd that they are employees
within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we find that a unit of the
following employees is appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All single truck distributors employed by the Employer at Grand
Rapids, Michigan, excluding warehousemen, semitruck drivers, office
clerical employees, salesmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
John C. Stalfort & Sons, Inc. and Printing Specialties and Paper
Products Union of the International Printing Pressmen and
Assistants' Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 5-RC-5,008. December 16, 1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Hubert E. Lott of the National Labor Relations Board.' 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 McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record-' in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
1 The Employer 's name appears herein as amended at the hearing.
2 The Hearing Officer granted the Employer ' s motion to incorporate into the record in
the instant case, insofar as relevant and material hereto, the record in Case No 5-RC-
2018, a prior representation proceeding involving one of the two issues presented here,
but not the same Union.
156 NLRB No. 7.
JOHN C. STALFORT & SONS, INC. 85
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain 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 unit of employees at the Employer's
Hammonds Ferry Road plant in Baltimore, Maryland, or any other
unit or units found appropriate by the Board. The Employer con-
tends that the only appropriate unit includes employees at both its
Hammonds Ferry Road plant and its Pratt Street plant, also located
in Baltimore. There is no bargaining history covering any of the
employees involved herein.
At its Hammonds Ferry Road plant, the Employer, with about 425
employees, is chiefly engaged in packaging aerosols; at its Pratt Street
plant, 4 or 5 miles away, the Employer, with some 60 employees, is
engaged in making and packaging various other items, such as Waxes
and cleaning agents. The Employer has a single warehouse located
on Pratt Street, serving both plants; additionally, there appear to be
some warehousing functions performed at each of the plants. The
Employer's general offices, which are located at the Pratt Street plant,
handle, among other things, payroll and financial matters. Decisions
relating to general labor relations policies for both plants are made at
the Pratt Street plant by company executives. The personnel director
for both plants has his office at the Pratt Street plant, but divides his
working time about equally between the two plants.
The Employer's president has an office at each plant. All employees
work under his overall supervision. It appears that the director of
plant operations is responsible to the president for supervision of the
employees at the Hammonds Ferry Road plant, and that he has no
responsibility for supervising employees at the Pratt Street plant.
The plants have similar machinery and certain of the employees classi-
fications are the same for both plants. Employees at the Pratt Street
plant print container labels and perform such heat-concentrate work
as is necessary for both plants; only 10 percent of the total production
at both plants requires heat-concentrate work, and the record does not
reflect how much of the Hammonds Ferry production requires such
work. Machine shop employees at the Hammonds Ferry Road plant
perform maintenance service for both plants. Maintenance and labo-
ratory employees at one plant will on occasion work with their counter-
parts at the other plant. The record does not reflect the frequency of
, The Employer's motion to dismiss on grounds relating to the sufficiency of the Peti-
tioner's showing of interest is denied. The sufficiency of a petitioner 's showing of in-
terest is an administrative matter not subject to litigation 0. D. Jennings i Company,
68 NLRB 516 . We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner 's showing of interest
in the unit hereinafter found appropriate is adequate.
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the interchange or the number of employees involved,-but it does not
in any event appear that on such occasions these employees lose their
identity as employees of the plant to which they are normally assigned.
There are virtually no interplant transfers. General wage increases
and company benefits, including holidays, vacations, and insurance, are
the same for both plants. Seniority is on a two-plant basis, except with
respect to temporary layoffs at the Hammonds Ferry Road plant.
Although it is apparent from the foregoing that a two-plant unit
would be an appropriate unit, it is not, however, on the facts revealed
in this record, the only appropriate unit. Thus the two plants are
geographically separated; the work force at each plant is under.sepa-
rate supervision; each plant produces different products; each plant
is to only a very limited extent dependent upon the other for either
product or labor; there is no bargaining history in a broader unit; and
no labor organization seeks primarily a unit broader than a single
plant unit. In view of these facts, we find that the employees at the
Hammonds Ferry Road plantsoughtbythe Petitioner have anidentity
separate, from the Employer's other employees and that such a single-
plant unit, which is one of the units made by statute presumptively
appropriate, will "assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercis-
ing the rights guaranteeed by this Act," and is therefore appropriate in
this case 4
The parties do not agree as to the unit placement of leadmen and
leadwomen. The Employer would include these employees in the unit;
the Petitioner submits their unit placement to the Board. Leadmen
and leadwomen work on the Employer's production lines at both
plants. They rotate employees on the production lines, relieve employ-
ees for "breaks" or see that they get relieved, act as conduits of infor-
mation from supervisors to employees, and keep production and reject
records. Some of these employees are salaried, others are hourly paid;
the latter punch a time clock. Leadmen spend approximately 50 per-
cent, and. leadwomen approximately 10 percent, of their time doing
physical work. The record fails to disclose that the leadmen and lead-
women have. or exercise any of the powers of a supervisor as set forth
in Section 2 (11) of the Act. We therefore find that leadmen and lead-
women are not supervisors and include them in the production and
maintenance unit hereinafter found appropriate.
*Dixie Belle Mills, Inc ., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bell Industries, Inc., 139 NLRB
629. The Employer contends that ( 1) in Case No. 5-RC-2018 ( not published in NLRB
volumes ), referred to above, in which the Board found that the employees at the Ham-
monds Ferry Road plant did not constitute a separate appropriate unit, is re8 adjudicate
in this proceeding, and (2 ) the single -plant unit sought by the Petitioner is based on its
extent of organization . We find no merit in these contentions . As to (1), the prior
proceeding is not res adjudicata as, apart from any other considerations , the Petitioner
herein was not a party thereto; as to (2), there are, as set forth above , many factors
other than extent of organization which support the appropriateness of this single-plant
unit. The Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on such grounds is therefore denied.
JOHN MAROON TRUCKING SERVICE 87
Upon the entire record in this case, we find that the following
employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employ-
er's Hammonds Ferry Road plant at Baltimore, Maryland, including
truckdrivers, plant and production clericals, shipping and receiving
clerks, laboratory employees, leadmen and leadwomen,' but excluding
office clericals, professional employees, guards, and, supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
John Maroon Trucking Service and Lawrence S. Tate . Case No.
14-CA-3492. December 17,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 27, 1965, Trial Examiner Wellington A. Gillis issued
his Decision . in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. . Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed a brief in answer to the
General Counsel's brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of. the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case. to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire
record in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep-
tions, and the briefs, and hereby adopts the, findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following
modifications.
We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the General
Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the Respondent refused to reemploy Lawrence Tate because he engaged
in protected concerted activity or because he filed a charge with the
Board; or that the Respondent refused to reemploy Roy Clark because
he engaged in protected concerted activity. We do not, however, agree
with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Clark's on-the-job protest
156 NLRB No. 13.