Glenside Lumber and Coal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 10, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1470 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,
under a contract excluding maintenance employees. At the hearing
the parties stipulated that the maintenance employees constitute an
appropriate unit. While the Board has established separate units for
maintenance employees where no union has sought to represent them
on a broader basis,3 it has held consistently that absent cogent reasons
to the contrary, an over-all production and maintenance unit is more
appropriate than separate units of these employees 4 In the instant
case there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Petitioner would
seriously oppose the representation of the maintenance employees in
the same unit with the production employees. Accordingly, we find
that the appropriate unit in this case is a single unit of production
and maintenance employees.
As no question of representation exists at the present time in the
existing production unit, we shall direct an election among all mainte-
nance employees in the employ of the Kirstein Leather Co., Inc.,
at Peabody, Massachusetts, but excluding all other employees, all
guards, professional employees, office and clerical employees, and all
supervisors' as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees
voting in the election cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the produc-
tion unit currently represented by the Petitioner, and the Regional
Director shall issue a certificate of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
3 Tyre Brothers Glass t Paint Co., 85 NLRB 910, 911.
4 Benner Tea Company , 88 NLRB 1409, 1411 ; Granite Textile Mills, Inc., 76 NLRB 613
5 The record does not contain evidence sufficient to enable us to determine whether Mark
Nalesnik, a maintenance leadman , is a supervisor . We shall make no finding at this time
but shall permit him to vote subject to challenge in the election herein directed. If his
ballot is determinative of the results of the election , we shall direct that further investiga-
tion be conducted to determine his status as a supervisor . Philadelphia Electric Company,
95 NLRB 71, 73.
GLENSIDE LUMBER AND COAL Co. and LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF
PHILADELPHIA & VICINITY, LOCAL 57, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNA-
TIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING & COMMON LABORERS UNION OF
AMERICA, AFL and LOCAL 384, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL, PETITIONERS. Cases Nos. 4-RC-1609 and 4-RC-1653. Octo-
ber 10, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing in Case No. 4-RC-1609 was held before Julius
100 NLRB No. 240.
GLENSIDE LUMBER AND COAL CO. 1471
Topol, hearing officer, and a hearing in Case No. 4-RC-1653 was held
before Joseph A. Weston, hearing officer.' The hearing officers'
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 these cases, 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. Laborers District Council of Philadelphia & Vicinity, Local 57,
affiliated with International Hod Carriers, Building & Common
Laborers Union of America, AFL, herein called the Hod Carriers,
seeks in Case No. 4-RC-1609 to represent the laborers at the Employ-
er's Glenside, Pennsylvania, yard. Local 384, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
AFL, herein called the Teamsters, seeks in Case No. 4-RC-1653 to
represent the truck drivers at the Employer's Glenside yard. In con-
tending that the units requested are inappropriate, the Employer
asserts that the only appropriate unit is one which would include all
the elployees at its Glenside yard and also all the employees at its
Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, yard. In the alternative the Employer
requests two separate units of its Glenside and Willow Grove em-
ployees, respectively. At the hearing both Petitioners indicated a
willingness to represent the Willow Grove employees in the same
classification as that sought by each of them at Glenside, should the
Board deem it appropriate to include Willow Grove employees in
the units requested.
The Employer does a retail business in fuels and building mate-
rials from two yards in Pennsylvania, one at Glenside and the other
at Willow Grove, 5 miles distant. From the Glenside yard the Em-
ployer sells lumber, coal, fuel oil, sand, and cement. From Willow
Grove the Employer sells ready-mixed concrete. The Employer's
main office work is done at Glenside, although a separate payroll is
made up at Willow Grove. The two yards are both under the general
manager. At each yard all employees are centrally supervised from
I The parties agreed at the hearing that all the stipulations, exhibits and testimony
taken in Case No 4-RC-1609 be incorporated into , and made a part of, the record in Case
No. 4-RC-1653. The nmtion to consolidate these cases , made by Local 384, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, is
hereby granted.
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the office. Each yard has laborers, truck drivers, and one mechanic.
In addition, there are two crane operators at Willow Grove and one
carpenter at Glenside. Interchange of employees, especially laborers,
between yards is frequent. Pay schedules are the same for both yards.
In view of the similarity of operations, and the centralized control
of, as well as the interchange of employees between, the Employer's
two places of business, we find, in substantial agreement with the
Employer, that the appropriate bargaining unit or units should include
employees at both yards.
The record reveals that the laborers at these yards whom the Hod
Carriers wishes to represent do not possess distinctive skills and are
not other wise a homogeneous, easily identifiable group warranting
their representation in a separate unit apart from the mechanics,
carpenter, and crane operators. We find, however, that all of these
employees may appropriately be represented in a single company-
wide Unit .2 The truck drivers are discussed below.
Truck drivers : The 13 truck drivers at Willow Grove load the
ready-mixed concrete into their trucks for delivery to customers.
Loading is done by the driver alone. Most of their time is spent in
driving the trucks. When not driving they repair their trucks. Occa-
sionally the Willow Grove truck drivers are sent to work at Glenside.
We find that these truck drivers, whom the Teamsters indicated a
willingness to represent along with the Glenside truck drivers, are
employees of the type who the Board has traditionally found may
appropriately be represented in a separate unit.3
There are 14 truck drivers at the Glenside yard. Like the Willow
Grove truck drivers they are paid 20 to 35 cents more than the laborers
at both yards. Because of the nature of the materials they handle,
these truck drivers spend as much as one-half of their time in the
yard loading their vehicles, with the help of the laborers. About
10 percent of their time is spent in piling lumber in the yard, a task
also performed by laborers. Further, in the summer months some
of the fuel truck drivers work in the yard; other drivers sometimes
spend as much as 3 days in the yard, doing laborers' work. However,
these latter employees retain the classification and pay rate of truck
drivers when they are working in the yard. We are satisfied that
the Glenside truck drivers' interests are more closely allied to those
of the Willow Grove truck drivers than to the interests of the remain-
ing employees and warrant their inclusion in the truck drivers' unit .4
We find that the following employees at the Employer's Glenside
and Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, yards, constitute separate units
S The showing of interest made by the Hod Carriers is adequate for this expanded unit.
8 Kennecott Copper Corporation, Ray Division, 98 NLRB 966.
4 The Teamsters ' showing of interest is adequate for this larger unit.
CLi1ARVYATER FINISHING COMPANY 1473
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9, (b) of the Act : 5
(1) All truck drivers, excluding all other employees and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
(2) All production and maintenance employees, including mechan-
ics, carpenter, and crane operators, but excluding all truck drivers
all office and clerical employees, and all supervisors s as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 We will not direct an election in an over -all unit, as the Employer requests , because no
union now seeks to represent all the production and maintenance employees on a over-all
basis.
The Hod Carriers would exclude the mechanic at the Willow Grove yard . The record
shows that this employee has no power to change the conditions of employment of the other
employees , or effectively to recommend such changes. He assigns work to the employees
only during the brief absences of the yard manager ; on these occasions his assignments
are routine in nature. We find that he is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,
and he is included in the unit.
CLEARWATER FINISHING COMPANY and LODGE No. 713, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , A. F. L. Case No. 10-CA-1259.
October 13, 1952
Decision and Order
On February 27,1952, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications?
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
2 We agree with the Trial Examiner that the discharges of Hutto and Livingston on
December 15 and 18 , 1950, are not barred from present consideration by the settlement
agreement of January 14, 1951 , in Case No. 10-CA-620. There is no evidence in the record
that these discharges were even considered , much less settled , in the negotiations leading
to the agreement. In fact, as of the date of the settlement , the Respondent had not been
put upon notice that the Union regarded these discharges as unfair labor practices.
100 NLRB No. 236.