Southwest Truck Body Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1341 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

SOUTHWEST TRUCK BODY COMPANY 1341
6. By refusing, on June 26, 1950, and thereafter, to bargain collectively with
International Association of Machinists, District Lodge #94 for its Local Lodge
1126, the Respondent Corporation has engaged in and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
7. By the said refusing the Respondent Corporation interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
SOUTHWEST TRUCK BODY COMPANY 1 and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS , DISTRICT No. 9, PETITIONER . Case No. 14-RCi-1.277.
April 11, 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 Harry G. Carlson, hearing
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 em-
ployees 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 2
4. The Petitioner seeks to combine into a single unit all the pro-
duction and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's two
plants, Plant 1 in St. Louis, Missouri, and Plant 2 in East St. Louis,
Illinois. The Intervenor, having served for at least 10 years as the
bargaining agent of the production and maintenance employees
assigned to the plant known as Plant 1, contends that these employ-
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Intervenor contends that its contract with the Employer covering the employees
employed at the Employer's plant on South 4th Street, St. Louis, Missouri, is a bar to this
proceeding. This contention is lacking in merit. The contract dated July 7, 1950,
provides, inter alia, for maintenance of membership in the Intervenor. However, because
the Intervenor has not been certified by the Board under Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act
as being authorized to execute such a union - security provision , we find that the contract
is not a bar to a present determination of representatives. C. Hager & Sons Hinge
Manufacturing Company, 80 NLRB 163.
93 NLRB No. 237.
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ees constitute a separate appropriate unit. The Employer maintains
a neutral position.
The Employer, a Missouri corporation with two plants, one in St.
Louis, Missouri, and the other in East St. Louis, Illinois, is engaged
in the business of manufacturing, repairing, and maintaining truck
bodies and equipment. These plants are several miles apart and are
referred to as Plants 1 and 2, respectively. Plant 1 is the older plant
and contains the Employer's principal offices. It has been operating
for many years, although the Employer did not acquire it until Jan-
uary 1948. Plant 2, on the other hand, first began to function on
October 1, 1950.
Since January 1949, a part of the Employer's operations has been
devoted to the repair and maintenance of trucks for the Engineers
Corps of the United States Army. At first, the work was confined to
the repair and maintenance of truck bodies and equipment, but in
the summer of 1950, it was extended to include truck and automotive
motors. These activities were carried on in Plant 1 along with the
Employer's other activities until October 1, 1950, when due to an in-
crease in orders from the Engineers Corps, they were transferred to
Plant 2. Since that date, Plant 2 has been handling all the work which
the Employer performs for the U. S. Army Engineers Corps, while
the Employer's other operations are conducted in Plant 1. There are
currently about 24 employees attached to Plant 1, and about 38, to
Plant 2. The employees in Plant 2 are all newly hired except for 3
who were transferred from Plant 1.
Although each plant has its own supervisors, their over-all opera-
tions are under the supervision of the Employer's president and man-
ager. There is a single payroll for the two plants and their respective
employees receive comparable pay and are subject to the same labor
policies. The employees in Plant 1 spend an average of about an hour
a day fabricating certain parts which are essential to the work per-
formed at Plant 2.3 Plant 1 also stocks all the materials and supplies
required by the two plants.
The foregoing facts indicate the desirability of including the pro-
duction and maintenance employees in Plants 1 and 2 in a single unit'
However, the employees at Plant 1 have a separate history of col-
lective bargaining which began in 1940. From that date until the
present, the Intervenor has continuously represented these employees,
dealing with the Employer since it acquired the plant and before that,
with the Employer's predecessor. This history indicates that the
Plant 1 employees may constitute a separate appropriate bargaining
' The record shows that Plant 1 alone contains the equipment that is used in the
fabrications of these parts.
4 Nashvslle Wire Products Manufacturing Co., Inc., et ai ., 89 NLRB 135.
GLOSSER BROS., INC. 1343
unit." Under these circumstances , we shall make no final unit de-
termination at this time, but shall be guided in part by the desires of
the employees as expressed in the elections hereinafter directed. Ac-
cordingly, we shall direct that separate elections be held among each
of the following groups of the Employer's employees, excluding from
each group office and clerical employees, guards, watchmen, pro-
fessional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act :
Group 1. All production and maintenance employees employed
at the Employer's plant located on 2701 South Fourth Street, St.
Louis, Missouri.
Group 2. All production and maintenance employees employed
at the Employer's plant located at Parks Metropolitan Airport, East
St. Louis, Illinois.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
° Owens-Illinois Glass Company , 82 NLRB 205 ; Lowell Industrial Development Company,
80 NLRB 1695 . The union -security clause in the current contract between the Employer
and the Intervenor has not been authorized by an election under Section 9 (e) of the Act.
But this does not, we find , affect the weight to be accorded the bargaining history as a
factor in the Board 's unit determination, because no finding has been made that the
Intervenor is an organization supported or dominated within the meaning of Section 8
( a) (2) of the Act . Cf Albert's Incorporated, 91 NLRB 522.
Member Murdock believes it to be immaterial whether or not a formal finding has
been made that such a clause is violative of Section 8 (a) (2) In his judgment, in
neither case should the existence of an illegal union -security clause for a brief period
be permitted to affect the weight to be accorded a long history of otherwise lawful
bargaining in determining the appropriate unit Member Murdock thus does not agree
with the Albert 's case , but accepting that case as law lie perceives no valid distinction
to be made between patently illegal union -security clauses and those which, fortuitously,
have been the subject of a formal 8 (a) (2) finding.
GLOSSER BROS., INC. and AMALGAMATED MEAT CuTn'RS AND BUTCHER
WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 268, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 6-RC-638. April 12, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before W. G. Stuart
Sherman, 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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
9 .3 NLRB No 242